Military Review

Do we need a Boomerang instead of an BTR-82?

221

Yes, we continue the topic Boomerang. Precisely because, as usual with us, 80% of the commenting mass did not understand anything, especially without complicating themselves with reading. However, the usual thing.


To continue the topic I was inspired by the next Personal Opinion of Mr. Aniral of the divan troops. In which he spoke so impressively that "all this is garbage, everyone is equal before the RPG." But because the "Boomerang" that the BTR-82 - no difference.

My God, and this is in the 21st century, and on “Military Review” such nonsense is being posted ...

Okay, let's go wheels in order.

RPG-7. Weapon Arabs and blacks. Well, militias in case of the last war. Volkssturm of the 21st century will look like this: AKM from warehouses and RPG-7 from there. What if you're lucky?


I immediately understand that whoever speaks here specifically in terms of the fact that RPG is a scrap against which there is no admission, this RPG is only seen on video. And to shoot ... Well, yes, why is it sofa?

My colleague Krivov and I were given a try two years ago. In the exercises where we shot. Misha - layout tank, 300 meters to her. The briefing was. All showed. Well, we fired, in accordance with the information received.

Of course not. But they had the notion that after such a shot they won’t let you get another one, if only the mentally retarded are on the other side.

So, gentlemen, couches, with all my heart I wish you to check on yourself how it is, an RPG against a tank. Not in computer shooters, but in kind. Blacks and Arabs sometimes succeed, but even they prefer the Tou.

I want to live ...

Do not write nonsense, I beg you very much. RPG-7 (as well as AKM) today is the weapon of an African rogue, a rebel in the jungle and a pirate on a longboat. A smart modern army fighter with this thing may perhaps show something, but not for long.


Because in the tank or infantry fighting vehicle they are by no means fools, and they probably know how to use optics, cameras, thermal imagers and, most importantly, machine guns! And for their part, they will do everything so that you get the idea that the idea of ​​firing an RPG from a tank is not the best.

And God forbid that the understanding was 7,62 mm, and not 12,7.

In general, a disposable weapon is a disposable organism.

We’ll talk about serious things now. About whether we even need these "Boomerangs", for which I so advocated. True, the shadow of the Su-57 completely closed them, but nothing, let's try a second attempt. What if it works out?

So, in principle, we have a development and several assembled copies (ceremonial), sort of like for testing, wheeled armored personnel carrier K-16 and tracked infantry fighting vehicle K-17. Well, in the future, a whole bunch of other cars, both the combat plan, and special, repair and others.


What confuses many today is the size. On the dimensions of K-16, and arguments are built. But since the marshals and generals are couch, then all this does not look very logical.

Yes, K-16 is very good in terms of growth, that is, height. Higher tanks are obtained. Many drew attention to this. And besides, heavy, 32 tons.

Cons: High - which means it’s easier to get into. So we need a low and fast armored personnel carrier! But he already is! This is BTR-82A! Hooray!


And stuff like that.

Immediately, I note that not everything that is low is good.


Where is the place of armored personnel carriers in modern combat? And over there. Behind everyone. An armored personnel carrier is also a transporter in order to bring infantry to the landing line and land it. Tanks went, infantry went, and only armored personnel carriers crawled behind them, shooting from a safe distance for every little thing. Supporting the infantry, so to speak.

About the same thing will happen in the city, only infantry will go first, then tanks, and only then armored boxes.

And no one will run on them with grenade launchers in the first place, because either the infantry will shoot everything (and they will try to mentally), or the tankers will arrange a local apocalypse in a single village.

BTR at the forefront of the offensive - nonsense. And defense is also nonsense. Its place is where size is far from important.

Well, if someone confuses the APC and BMPT - this is his own business.

Now go through the competitor.

BTR-82A. In fact, as I said in the first article, this is the same BTR-60. The differences are minimal, and the main essence of the car has not changed over the past 70 years. A little added armor, horsepower to the engine, weapons increased. But essentially it’s the same BTR-60. With its main drawback, which is impossible to eliminate without changing the essence of the machine.

We look at the photo.

Afghanistan. Armored infantry.


Syria. Armored infantry.


Donbass, Ossetia ... The list goes on, but the essence will be the same: the infantry rides on top of the armor.






Stupidity? Panache? No. The desire to live. Sniper ... Well, yes. But not all. Machine gun? Well yes. But not a very accurate weapon. Mina under the bottom? Well yes…

With all three troubles, the situation is the same - you fly head first and think: if you shoot, then where?

But if the mine explodes under the bottom, and the landing is not on the armor, but inside, then the practice of Afghanistan has proved that the APC turns into a good and comfortable mass grave on wheels.

Do we need a Boomerang instead of an BTR-82?

And since over the past 70 years the BTR-60 (70, 80, 82 with various letters) has not changed for the better, then here is the result. Infantry rides on top of the armor. Substituting bullets, fragments, but stubbornly not wanting to die in an iron can, completely not holding a mine explosion.

And no matter how you upgrade the armored personnel carriers of this family, placing a diesel engine, adding 30-mm guns, thickening armor, introducing anti-shatter loot and modern means of aiming and observation, soldiers on the march will invariably crawl out on the armor.

Personal opinion: no matter how you tune the VAZ, it was like an old TAZ, and it will go to the landfill with a basin. As the BTR-60 became obsolete by the 80s of the last century, so no matter how much you upgrade, it will remain an old can. A deadly old can. For the crew and the landing.

But there is one more minus. Big.

Now, everyone who served in the Union, come on, refresh your memory and do not let lie. What was the fighter dragging on himself? We don’t even remember about the "harness", this thing was exclusively necessary for carrying the raincoat-tent. And so the outfit is more than modest: a shovel, a flask, a gas mask, a cartridge pouch for shops, a pouch for grenades.

It was possible, with all this goodness, to get into the armored personnel carrier. And get out if something happens.

Today in the "Warrior" is more than doubtful. And if in the heavy equipment of a sapper ... It’s simply unrealistic.


In addition, this side hole ... It’s so convenient to jump out of it on the side of the armored (conditionally) hull, right under the bullets ...

Well, yes, but the APC is floating. A very useful option, especially in Syria and the Donbass. That's where buoyancy just helped out.

And a few words about armor.

Let us all agree that the BTR-82 does not have armor per se. The machine body can easily be flashed with an ordinary armor-piercing rifle bullet. From an average distance.

But the main enemy of the APC is not a sniper, although it can also drink blood. And not an RPG consumable. The main enemy of the BTR-82 is a colleague with either a heavy machine gun or an automatic cannon. Or - the Arabic version - a pickup truck, in the body of which both a gun and a machine gun are easily stuffed. Fast, inexpensive, efficient.

Pickup seems even worse to me. The review is better, speed and maneuverability will take its toll. And oligophrenic with a heavy machine gun will be a big problem. It is clear that the same disposable thing as a fellow with RPG, but it can do even more efficient things than a grenade launcher.

You must admit that it is much easier to get on an APC from a machine gun or a gun than from an RPG. And from a greater distance. And on a moving target.

So, sitting in an armored personnel carrier, you really should prefer three or four suicide bombers with RPGs than one psycho with a DShK on a pickup truck.

And so I turn to the Boomerang. So calmly go around. You didn’t get the understanding that in the event of a normal war with the saturation of the theater of war with modern means of battle, these 20-30 centimeters in height are nothing?

I have such an understanding.

And at the same time there is an understanding that not a low silhouette will save from missiles and grenades, but protection. Optoelectronic detection and suppression systems, dynamic protection, active protection systems. By the way, our potential KAZ is working out in full, and soon the army will install army jeeps and fuel trucks.

What can Boomerang offer in this regard?

A lot actually.


For example, a V-shaped bottom, the initial mine protection. Next is a suspended floor and energy-absorbing chairs. All this greatly increases the chances of survival among the paratroopers. And given how popular mines, guided land mines and other VCA are becoming popular all over the world, what kind of losses regular armies suffer from homemade products, survivability from undermining such a charge is our everything.

Armor. K-16 is capable of carrying armor that can withstand not only a bullet from a machine gun or rifle, but also a larger caliber. And with additional complexes you can talk about missiles and grenades.

Finally, the frankly miserable exit from the side or top of the hull remains in the past. And you can land as a BMP, from the stern, at least minimally hiding behind the car body.

And yes, the K-16 can provide a more spacious landing compartment. That in modern conditions is useful even in principle, because there is still a difference between conscripts of the sample of the 70-80s of the last century and today's contractors. In terms of weight and size characteristics.

In general, this is not only with us. This is true all over the world. Everywhere the army people became ... larger. Accordingly, the size of armored vehicles is growing. Look at the same “Stryker”, “Boxer”, “Frechchia” - well, all of them are not BTR-82 obviously. We can say that along with people, war machines also grew up, which need to transport not only people, but also ammunition and ammunition. There are not many rounds and grenades.

Move on. Boomerang is a very promising platform on which you can create many useful machines. From a wheeled tank (which for some reason we are skeptical of) to the KShM, sanitary and other important things. This is especially true for sanitary facilities. MT-LB for a long time does not correspond to modern combat realities.

And just a couple of words about the ability to swim. Yes, the BTR-60 was a "chip". It was presented as something excellent, "unparalleled," as it is now fashionable to say.

How important this option is today is very difficult to say. Somehow, the crossing of the Rhine, the Oder, the English Channel has completely receded into the background, most likely, there’s no need to fight there. Although, of course, some of our audience, which “we can repeat,” would very much advocate for this.

In general, the Boomerang can swim. But it’s better not to engage in this anachronism, but to develop more engineering troops that are more useful in this regard, which can throw not only heavy equipment across the water barrier, but also fuel and lubricants, ammunition and other useful things needed on the battlefield.

Weight ... Well, yes, 32 tons - this is not 15 for the BTR-82, but there are so many nuances here ... And the main thing is the engine. From what the BTR-82 carries, the KAMAZ "eight" of 300 hp the maximum that can still be obtained is 20-30 forces. Hence the complete “stop” for the further development of the armored personnel carrier. Or you need to come up with a new engine that fit into the rather poor volumes of the BTR-82.

The Boomerang has a YaMZ-780 multi-fuel diesel engine with a capacity of 750 liters. pp., which is very significant, and the ratio of forces per ton of mass is even steeper than that of the BTR-82. 24 versus 20. And the Yaroslavl engine can still be twisted in terms of modifications. So the hefty K-16 car is no slower than an APC.

Armament ... In the basic configuration, almost parity, if we compare exactly the BTR-82AM and K-16. But if you look in perspective, then I personally really like the variation on the theme of the 57-mm “Baikal”. Such a gun can not only carry pickups and classmates to the state of scrap metal, but even offend the tank on board.

Too much? C'mon, I don’t understand at all such a term as “excessive armor penetration”, I immediately recall history with the 57-mm anti-tank gun Grabin, which was first discontinued for this reason, and then urgently returned when the Tigers appeared.

All over the world this tendency to increase the caliber of support has long been going. And if earlier it was 20-25 mm, now it’s 30, and even 40 millimeters. So 57 mm is quite normal, and a wheeled tank with a 125 mm cannon also looks good.

Here you can recall that wheeled vehicles have a higher speed, and it is not necessary to carry on trawls, saving a resource. And the fact that the "minibus to the battlefield" as a class of application of technology is becoming obsolete. And it is replaced by just such a heavy vehicle, capable of not only delivering infantry to the battlefield, but also actually supporting it with fire and armor.

Yes, not like a tank can do it, but not like an armored personnel carrier with its 14,5 mm under-machine gun.

Most modern, unsurprising military experts predict the war of the future as a multi-media mobile confrontation. That is, the war is not in hypothetical fields or near the heights, but rather around and around cities, which will play the role of strongholds.

It is enough to look at the latest civil wars in Syria and Ukraine. That is exactly what happened there. There were virtually no front lines, but mines, ATGMs, ambushes and raids became common practice. Everyday.

Accordingly, the more versatile and multi-functional a combat vehicle will be, the greater the chances of a motorized rifle unit to survive and win. Modularity is everything for tomorrow’s war.

And here “Boomerang” looks very beautiful in perspective of installing KAZ, dynamic protection, additional reservation schemes and other things.

In general, around the world, ATGMs have become quite commonplace. It’s only for us that some of the most mossy part of readers are praying all on RPG-7, and even these representatives appeared at representatives of various military groups in the Middle East.


Moreover, the war on the warheads gave rise to the phenomenon of ATGM mercenaries. Experienced fighters, on the account of which there are many destroyed tanks of various military formations. And the same “Tou”, although archaism, but is better than RPG-7. And I’m silent about Javelin.

Although ours are not inferior, they are in many ways superior to foreign models. But the protection in the form of lattice screens on the same BTR-82AM looks like bed nets on tanks in Berlin in 1945.

In general, heavy armored personnel carriers are actively designing and building in the world. USA, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Singapore, Serbia ...


And who does not design - he simply buys.

And we have all the “shifts to the right” and corruption scandals. And we are building huge “military” churches. Instead of Boomerangs. And the panel with the first persons orders the Ministry of Defense. Instead of shells.

Strange decisions, to be honest. And Russian soldiers in Syria still ride "on the armor", and not inside it, because the fear of being blown up by a mine is more than getting a bullet from a sniper. A sniper may miss, but a good land mine ...

And how many do not tune the BTR-60, there will not be a good result. Just because the concept of the machine itself is 70 years old. And this, accordingly, is not the level of today, but of the last century, alas.

But we have a crisis. We are saving. So that there was something to steal, what to build various dubious structures and "patriotic" parks in the country, come up with another type of form, and so on. Well, these are strange things like underwater atomic drones and other "unparalleled" incomprehensible, but not cheap gizmos.

And it’s time to think about the strategy and tactics of tomorrow and to develop new technology for it. And not like ours: first, something is being developed, then an understanding of how this technique can be applied begins, then conversations about the “huge export potential” begin, and then that’s it. A curtain.

We hardly need such an approach in general, do we?
Author:
221 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. The popuas
    The popuas 8 May 2020 05: 58 New
    +3
    This is the syllable winked
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 8 May 2020 07: 02 New
      24
      Quote: Popuas
      This is the syllable
      Indeed, he asks - "Oh yes Pushkin! Oh yes son of a bitch!" Here, only, the novel in its frank pathos contradicts itself. We take from the text.
      Do not write nonsense, I beg you very much. RPG-7 (as well as AKM) today is the weapon of an African rogue, a rebel in the jungle and a pirate on a longboat. A smart modern army fighter with this thing may perhaps show something, but not for long.
      It should be remembered right away that a full-scale production of RPG-7 reusable hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers is being created in the United States, which were developed in the Soviet Union in the 60s of the last century and since then are the most popular type of hand-held grenade launchers in the world (as reported by the Defense Aerospace portal) ... The American version of the RPG-7 differs from its Russian counterpart only in that it has a stock from an M4 assault rifle, a pistol grip from an AR-15, and a Picatinny rail. Here is the weapon of the "homeless". Further at Roman.
      Where is the place of armored personnel carriers in modern combat? And over there. Behind everyone. An armored personnel carrier is also a carrier for transporting infantry to the line of landing and landing it.
      So why would he be "Mouse", heavy, huge, complex and expensive to make? Also, did the "Boomerang" go into service, did it go through a full cycle of tests for this?
      In Roman we read that the BTR-82A differs little from the BTR-60 ... Literally, according to Roman's text "In fact, as I said in the first article, this is the same BTR-60". So, I personally had the opportunity to climb and ride the BTR-60PB, no, dear Roman, with the BTR-82A this is far from the same thing. So you can safely say that in fact any modern rifle is still the same musket, the principle is one - a barrel, gunpowder, a bullet. Well, okay ...

      Now, the "landing on armor" has already set the teeth on edge. What, the guys went on the attack like that? No, this is a movement in a column, which may be unexpectedly attacked. So you can quickly jump, dismount, take up an all-round defense, minimize damage from a possible explosion. It is necessary to distinguish here between police equipment, anti-terrorist operations against militants using guerrilla tactics, in attacks on military columns, and a war against a full-fledged army (alliance of armies), which has all kinds of troops. The MRAP technology (mine resistant ambush protected - protected from undermining and ambush attacks, mine-resistant ambush), is just suitable for police, anti-terrorist operations, but this technology invariably increases the height of the car, making such a technique more vulnerable to hitting the sides.

      Also, on the topic "the next Personal Opinion of the master anirala sofa troops ", there is no invulnerable technology, dear Roman, just the" sons "that have not seen dirt and blood, dream of seeing a thick-skinned armored personnel carrier, where you can sit out with a can of beer and air conditioning. Here, just, any armored personnel carrier is not a bomb shelter, get out into the light God, for battle, you still have to, or burn alive in the thickest armor, or get a "shrapnel" in the forehead at the side of your own "invulnerable" armored personnel carrier, fire at this time its possible and desired by many KAZ.
      1. Alekseev
        Alekseev 8 May 2020 07: 34 New
        11
        Quote: Per se.
        no invulnerable equipment, dear Roman,

        As "aniral anirala" with a fair amount of seniority, though not on the couch, I completely agree.
        Repeatedly repeated, including on the forum, that the BTT and the armored personnel carriers, too, should be different in tasks.
        For some civilians, you can give a simple example: KamAZ is a good car, but it is impossible to do without gazelles and lawns.
        The illusion that in
        Quote: Per se.
        thick-skinned armored personnel carrier, where you can sit out with a can of beer and air conditioning.
        stupid.
        Analysts of all kinds should know that the most powerful defense is attacked by infantry on foot, tanks move in the intervals of its battle formation, no one is hiding behind them, since this is not a terrorist's house, it is dangerous because they hit the tank, cover all the compartment that "clutched" behind him.
        So on the march, it’s one thing when the Barmalei put a mine and shot from the AK, and otherwise when the aircraft strikes. MRAP is needed there, and there is ZRAK, maneuver, dispersal, aerosols, etc.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 8 May 2020 07: 47 New
          +9
          That's the point, Alexey, you need different equipment, different tactics. Finally, there is a different geographic environment, different types of combat, and the fighting itself is different, it is one thing to protect military columns (where there will be onboard vehicles, truck cranes, fuel trucks), another, a battle in the city, a battle from the march, when crossing a water barrier. Also, in addition to understanding protection in thick armor, there is such as maneuverability, stockiness. Sometimes, the latter is more likely to save lives than being in a clumsy, "two-story hippo". It is not necessary to lump everything in one heap, that's what we are talking about.
      2. Kalmar
        Kalmar 8 May 2020 09: 23 New
        11
        Quote: Per se.
        Now, the "landing on armor" has already set the teeth on edge. What, the guys went on the attack like that? No, this is a movement in a column, which may be unexpectedly attacked. So you can quickly jump, dismount, take up an all-round defense, minimize damage from a possible explosion.

        An amateurish question arises. In the convoy, the landing party rides on armor. In battle, the landing force runs in front of the armor. So, why armor then at all? Isn't it easier to make a "convertible" without boards? Height decreases, weight decreases, but otherwise everything is the same.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 8 May 2020 10: 24 New
          +3
          Quote: Kalmar
          Isn't it easier to make a "convertible" without boards?

          laughing
          Simpler.
          And you can also educate normal commanders who will drive the infantry into place. In the "landing". But it's much harder
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 8 May 2020 10: 47 New
            13
            And you can also educate normal commanders who will drive the infantry into place. In the "landing". But it's much harder


            Especially when you need to transport 15 people on it. It’s not easy at all.

            In general, Skoromorkhov is right in this case. The principle of "women give birth to new" should remain in the past together with the technology that was invented under this principle. For the same amers, the LAV-25 is simply forbidden to be used as an armored personnel carrier, only as an armored reconnaissance vehicle.
            Due to flimsy armor protection.
            And he has it no worse than that of the BTR-80/82.
            Those same Americans with their experience of combined arms combat in recent history, our armored personnel carriers would simply not be considered as military vehicles.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 8 May 2020 11: 08 New
              +8
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Especially when you need to transport 15 people on it. It’s not easy at all.

              It will be necessary, and so much will be driven. Indeed, in unpleasant weather, when the threat of mines disappears for some reason, the personnel are perfectly rammed

              Quote: timokhin-aa
              In general, Skoromorkhov is right in this case

              What about the need for better protection for an APC? Here is right.

              As for RPGs and the influence of size on the likelihood of damage, no.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 8 May 2020 12: 22 New
                +3
                It will be necessary, and so much will be driven. Indeed, in unpleasant weather, when the threat of mines disappears for some reason, the personnel are perfectly rammed


                Especially considering how much property is lying around in the "landing" during long exits. And in general it's great. There, two of them are just lying down and that's it.

                What about the need for better protection for an APC? Here is right.


                It is still necessary to think - and whether the armored personnel carrier "Boomerang".
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 8 May 2020 12: 59 New
                  +3
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Especially considering how much property is lying around in the "landing" during long exits.

                  And it too .. It all depends on the weather. Well, from the activity of the enemy. As soon as the weather was good and the enemy died down, there was immediately a danger of mine and there was no place in the landing.

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  It is still necessary to think - and whether the armored personnel carrier "Boomerang".

                  Armored personnel carrier.
                  Because the BMP functions cannot be performed. For wheeled and limited in maneuverability.
              2. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 8 May 2020 13: 01 New
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                In general, Skoromorkhov is right in this case.

                Quote: Spade
                What about the need for better protection for an APC? Here is right.

                The author scolds the armored personnel carrier of the BTR, but praises the pickups with a machine gun, where there is no armor at all.
                Just another swearing of the side exits, they say if you drop from behind, then the landing is covered with armor. Who shoots at the armored personnel carrier? ahead of the car? If they fire at the convoy (which is accompanied by armored personnel carriers), then the shooting will be from the flank, that is, the back exit is just under the bullets. Ideally, there should be both side exits and the rear, too, and he will decide how the landing party will take advantage.
                And undermining an armored personnel carrier in a mine is less dangerous for him than for a tank or infantry fighting vehicle.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 8 May 2020 16: 49 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  Who shoots at the armored personnel carrier? ahead of the car?

                  Enemy infantry. Frontier dismounting.

                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  If shelling a column (which is accompanied by armored personnel carriers)

                  The columns must be accompanied by MRAPs. And when firing, it is necessary not to rush the infantry, but at high speed to get out of it
                  1. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 8 May 2020 20: 34 New
                    +6
                    Quote: Spade
                    Enemy infantry. Frontier dismounting.

                    Quote: Spade
                    The columns must be accompanied by MRAPs.

                    I agree. But for 2 years of Afghanistan, I saw armored personnel carriers escorted by columns, MRAPs did not see a single one. And almost always, the enemy from the flank.
                2. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 8 May 2020 20: 50 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  And undermining an armored personnel carrier in a mine is less dangerous for him than for a tank or infantry fighting vehicle.

                  BMP-2 after a mine explosion, inside view towards the engine compartment (driver's seat on the left) (p. Kishim.)
        2. Per se.
          Per se. 8 May 2020 11: 01 New
          +3
          Quote: Kalmar
          So, why then armor at all?
          An armor-piercing bullet, especially a large-caliber one, will sew through any body armor, but there are fragments, there are non-armor-piercing bullets, there are hits on a tangent and at the end, so a bulletproof vest and helmet are at least desirable, these are additional chances to survive. Of course, you can spin without armor, the same pickup truck with a machine gun, as a modern "carriage" is an example of this. Try to hit. Interestingly, with the same Oleg Kaptsov, people argue about the uselessness of "battleships", in general, reserving ships, and they are ready to "lie down" for a heavy infantry fighting vehicle or a thick-armored armored personnel carrier ... Don't just take it at your own expense.

          I have already said that the technique is different. Here is Roman "harnessed" for "Boomerang", but for God's sake! This miracle will do well as a police, anti-guerrilla technique, especially to disperse the crowd at demonstrations with one look. It will also do for escorting military columns, it would be useful to us in due time in Afghanistan, as an option. By the way, our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, undoubtedly, are the best in the world, and in Afghanistan, they were not originally intended for a war on the roads, were created for another war.

          Now directly about the armor, about the protection of the infantry. If we talk about equipment that should interact with tanks, in my understanding (to your question), this is heavy equipment on a single tank base. For example, T-72 / T-90 tanks, and as specialized fire support next to or even in front of BMPT tanks (like "Terminator"), in the second line there are heavy armored personnel carriers (for example, BMO-T on a tank base). Here, only, the heavy armored personnel carrier here is no longer an "armored bus" for 10-12 people, but a well-protected transport for an assault group of 5-6 people. A reduction in the landing will allow the vehicle to be optimized in terms of dimensions and protection, create more comfortable conditions, and minimize losses in the event of an armored personnel carrier being hit with a landing party inside. I repeat this, for the equipment that should work with tanks, go on the attack.

          All this does not negate the classic BMP and BTR, such as the BMP-3 or BTR-82A, but they have a somewhat different task. As for heavy infantry fighting vehicles, in my, "couch" look, this is good only for police vehicles. The Anglo-Saxons produced their "Bradleys" and "Warrior", which were not suitable for our BMP-1/2/3, but quite coped with expeditionary strategy, colonial tactics.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 8 May 2020 11: 25 New
            +3
            Thanks for the detailed answer, interesting.

            But my question was a little different. Armor is only useful if it is between a fighter and someone who threatens that fighter. When a fighter sits on the armor (and the video reports give the impression that they haven’t been riding inside our armored vehicles for a long time, only on horseback), from it (the armor), it turns out no good. I’m also ironic about this.
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 8 May 2020 11: 57 New
              0
              Quote: Kalmar
              I’m also ironic about this.
              In the army (and navy), there is always something to be ironic about. Sometimes it is a pity that "overland fuel oil under the solid oil" is not always understood as "naval humor."
          2. Lopatov
            Lopatov 8 May 2020 11: 27 New
            +4
            Quote: Per se.
            This miracle will completely come down as a police, counter-guerrilla technique, especially, to disperse the crowd at demonstrations with one look. Suitable for escorting military columns

            There are MRAPs for this.

            Quote: Per se.
            All this does not cancel the classic BMP and BTR, such as the BMP-3 or BTR-82A, but they already have a slightly different task.

            What?
            To bring infantry to the line of landing on the armor of tanks?
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 8 May 2020 11: 51 New
              0
              Quote: Spade
              There are MRAPs for this.
              So in "Boomerang" this technology is directly used.
              "Trough" enhances protection against detonation, and it also increases the height of the vehicle, substituting the sides. Here, and choose what will be more relevant, protection from a landmine "barmaley" (which he can lay more powerful) in a military column, or protection of a lateral projection in a classic battle.
              Quote: Spade
              To bring infantry to the line of landing on the armor of tanks?
              I specifically identified a bunch of tank-BMPT-heavy APCs. Classic BMPs, such as BMP-3 or their development BMD-4M, are excellent universal machines for raids, marching throws, general support and transportation. Otherwise, I will repeat what Roman already stated.
              Where is the place of armored personnel carriers in modern combat? And over there. Behind everyone. An armored personnel carrier is also a carrier for transporting infantry to the line of landing and landing it.
              Just for this, the very BTR-82A will do just fine.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 8 May 2020 12: 48 New
                0
                Quote: Per se.
                So in "Boomerang" this technology is directly used.

                ??
                It is not used there.

                Quote: Per se.
                I specifically identified a bunch of tank-BMPT-heavy APCs. Classic BMPs, such as BMP-3 or their development BMD-4M, are excellent universal machines for raids, marching throws, general support and transportation. Otherwise, I will repeat what Roman already stated.

                Understood nothing.
                Both armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles must take the infantry to the dismounting line. Cheap "Pokemon" can also take you to the line of landing on the armor of tanks
              2. bk0010
                bk0010 8 May 2020 16: 37 New
                +1
                Does anyone know if you can put junk in Boomerang at the bottom of the "trough"? How much space is lost!
              3. Starshina
                Starshina 11 May 2020 19: 58 New
                -1
                For kamikaze drones, it doesn’t matter in which row .. The BTR-82A is long outdated !!!
          3. mvg
            mvg 9 May 2020 13: 07 New
            +5
            The Anglo-Saxons produced their "Bradleys" and "Warrior", which were not suitable for our BMP-1/2/3

            Excuse me, but what exactly are our best armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles in the world? You can not argue? Maybe there are examples of successful military battles?
        3. bk0010
          bk0010 8 May 2020 16: 30 New
          0
          The task of the armored personnel carrier is to bring live infantry to the battlefield, even in the case of shelling and bombing. During World War II, the battalion reached the forefront because of these factors. For this, the armored personnel carrier has armor. But under armor it’s bad: crowded, stuffy, motion sick, and generally depressing. Therefore, the fighters climb up: they may not be killed there, but now it’s bad right now. You can make an armored personnel carrier the size of a bus, with air conditioning and LCD screens, but it will turn out to be very expensive and heavy.
          1. Starshina
            Starshina 11 May 2020 20: 03 New
            0
            Then why do they need to transport infantry in Kamaz?
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 11 May 2020 21: 37 New
              0
              Kamaz - only on the road, this is unacceptable. If you can’t leave the roads, then yes - MRI will be better: cheaper and more secure.
        4. Grits
          Grits 11 May 2020 10: 26 New
          +1
          Quote: Kalmar
          An amateurish question arises. In the convoy, the landing party rides on armor. In battle, the landing force runs in front of the armor. So, why armor then at all? Isn't it easier to make a "convertible" without boards? Height decreases, weight decreases, but otherwise everything is the same.

          I, too, have long gone to such an event. if no one drives inside an armored personnel carrier, then why do we need a box for an assault? I won’t be surprised that if the Boomerang goes into the army, then soldiers will also be sitting on top of his armor. As before, by inertia. Or maybe they’ll come up with some excuse.
          Then indeed, an armored personnel carrier is not needed to escort the columns and just to deliver soldiers. A certain platform is open. With a minimum side, so as not to fall out and jump was easier. Here you have a review and so on, which is so lacking inside the airborne squad. They sit to themselves, their backs to each other, they turn their heads, weapons are ready, ready to jump at any time without a sack. The question is - will the infantry agree to land on such a vehicle or will they nevertheless get on an armored personnel carrier?
          1. Starshina
            Starshina 11 May 2020 20: 09 New
            0
            Maybe it's better to transport infantry in helicopters quickly and safely?
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 11 May 2020 21: 40 New
              0
              Fast, but not safe (the "partners" have air superiority) and extremely expensive.
          2. alexmach
            alexmach 11 May 2020 20: 38 New
            +1
            In general, the design idea was going, was it going somewhere?


            Was it all already somewhere?
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 11 May 2020 20: 58 New
              +1
              Quote: alexmach
              Was it all already somewhere?

              It was. But practice has shown that a roof is necessary, otherwise an ordinary grenade (or a Molotov cocktail) puts an end to both the landing and the car.
              And more than once it was said that no one sits on the armor constantly, but looking at circumstances. They are sitting on the armor, if there is an option of undermining under the car, but if there is evidence that the mines will be on the sidelines, then the landing will sit inside, even if it is very hot outside.
              1. alexmach
                alexmach 11 May 2020 22: 18 New
                0
                This is when fighting in the city. But on the whole I agree, I think the proposal for a car without a roof is also not sound.
            2. bk0010
              bk0010 11 May 2020 21: 42 New
              +1
              One of the most important tasks of the APC was to pass through the lesion, without a roof - nothing.
              1. alexmach
                alexmach 11 May 2020 22: 16 New
                0
                And now this requirement is also relevant.
      3. Army soldier2
        Army soldier2 8 May 2020 10: 49 New
        +5
        Well done, Per se. (Sergey), removed from the tongue!
        I will not evaluate Citizen Skomorokhov; I did something stupid about three years ago - and they immediately banned me. But if pickups with DShKs are so good (as per the text), can they be put into service with the RA instead of armored personnel carriers and boomerangs?
        And about the RPG. No one disputes that this is a weapon of the middle of the last century. But, Mr. Skomorokhov, you "tried" a couple of years ago, and in the distant 80th, on GOS, I shot it perfectly. You need to be able ...
        How much the level of VO has fallen in the last 3-5 years!
      4. Ded_Mazay
        Ded_Mazay 9 May 2020 12: 08 New
        +2
        Quote: Per se.
        We read from Roman that the BTR-82A differs little from the BTR-60 ... Literally, according to Roman's text "In fact, as I said in the first article, this is still the same BTR-60." So, personally I had a chance to climb and ride the BTR-60PB, no, dear Roman, with the BTR-82A it is far from the same thing.

        And how do they differ from each other? Is there an equally useless reservation and no mine protection?
        1. Starshina
          Starshina 11 May 2020 20: 12 New
          0
          They are long outdated ...
        2. alexmach
          alexmach 11 May 2020 20: 42 New
          0
          And how do they differ from each other? Is there an equally useless reservation and no mine protection?

          What about higher ground clearance and larger wheels?
          1. Ded_Mazay
            Ded_Mazay 11 May 2020 20: 51 New
            +1
            Quote: alexmach
            And how do they differ from each other? Is there an equally useless reservation and no mine protection?

            What about higher ground clearance and larger wheels?

            A Niva with a higher ground clearance and larger wheels ceases to be a Niva and becomes a 200m Land Cruiser? No. So it is here ...
            1. alexmach
              alexmach 11 May 2020 20: 52 New
              0
              So 82a like BTR didn’t cease to be and Kruzer did not.
              1. Ded_Mazay
                Ded_Mazay 11 May 2020 22: 19 New
                -1
                That's it. As was a tin can and remained ...
                1. alexmach
                  alexmach 11 May 2020 22: 41 New
                  0
                  Excuse me, are you essentially ready to offer something? I've read articles and comments on them, I come to the conclusion that engineering is at an impasse. What should be the requirements for the car and what the economy will pull me, for example, for example, it’s not obvious at all.
                  1. Ded_Mazay
                    Ded_Mazay 12 May 2020 07: 52 New
                    0
                    Design Bureau has already offered - "Boomerang". Does he bother you with something?
                    1. alexmach
                      alexmach 12 May 2020 09: 12 New
                      0
                      The same as all the other commentators. The absence of troops 6 years after the premiere of him at the parade. And one can only speculate about the reasons for this, and these reasons are clearly not someone's reluctance, or even the price (they could always buy a ceremonial battalion kit or a kit for military tests, Yaseni, Su-57, Tu-160 are being built).

                      So the car either has problems with the characteristics of something that does not meet somewhere, and this is not necessarily the notorious dimensions, or with the organization of production / import substitution.

                      And again about the price. I checked with Wikipedia, for 2018 in the army 1600 BTR-82a and another fifteen hundred BTR-80. This is a total of more than 3000 armored personnel carriers, it is clear that everything cannot be replaced all at once, so the remaining 80 will still be operated for a long time. Probably worth the remaining 80s and upgrade at least to 82am ...
                      1. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 12 May 2020 09: 36 New
                        +1
                        Quote: alexmach
                        So the car either has problems with the characteristics of something that does not meet somewhere,

                        smile We came to the conclusion that the case does not quite correspond to:

                        ".... BTR and BMP" Boomerang "will receive a new hull with increased buoyancy. In addition, the displacement of the armored vehicle will also increase ....."
                        https://rg.ru/2020/04/06/bumerang-poluchit-novyj-korpus-s-usilennoj-zashchitoj.html
                      2. alexmach
                        alexmach 12 May 2020 09: 40 New
                        0
                        And it took 5 years? Well, it’s obvious that it’s even just in time that somewhere the non-pushable is not being pushed in ...
                      3. Ded_Mazay
                        Ded_Mazay 12 May 2020 10: 57 New
                        +1
                        Almost any processing of the machine, if I am not mistaken, leads to the fact that state tests have to start from the beginning.
                      4. alexmach
                        alexmach 12 May 2020 11: 47 New
                        0
                        Any serious, as mentioned, for example, a change in displacement, probably yes.
                2. Ded_Mazay
                  Ded_Mazay 12 May 2020 10: 56 New
                  +1
                  It seems to me that if you are really guessing, then it is not about the reasons for the delay in bringing to readiness and state tests, but about the reasons for the false start with the presentation. Who, for some reason, came up with a "bright idea" to roll out these "promising samples" to the parade, which are still to be finished and finished?
                  As for 80/82, yes, they are apparently with us for a long time. Only here the idea of ​​modernizing 80k in 82e seems to me a waste of money. It seems to me more rational to displace the BTR 80 from the troops with the supply of new equipment. And the 80s freed up in this way are either sent for storage, or upgraded to 82x but for sale on order, or converted into machines for the needs of the Ministry of Emergencies or forest protection, which is even better.
                3. alexmach
                  alexmach 12 May 2020 11: 44 New
                  0
                  It seems to me that if you are really guessing, then it is not about the reasons for the delay in bringing to readiness and state tests, but about the reasons for the false start with the presentation. Who, for some reason, came up with a "bright idea" to roll out these "promising samples" to the parade, which are still to be finished and finished?

                  I agree. Most likely, very crude samples were rolled out. And this applies to Kurgan and Boomerang and Almaty.
                  The reasons are probably ideological in nature.
                  70th anniversary of victory + reunion with Crimea + Donbas. Patriotic upsurge + propaganda.
                  The most interesting thing was with the Su-57, then I think it was called the T-50. There, it seems, even Putin spoke in the style "if the plane is not ready to participate, there is no need to drive it to the parade" and he was not there, it was shown in my opinion the next year. And here is the SU-57 with specific plans for deliveries and production, but none of the armored vehicles shown there is still ready for production.
                  either remodel into machines for the needs of the Ministry of Emergencies or forest protection, which is even better.

                  So there is still a bunch of BTR-70 in storage for these purposes. + MTLB ...
  • lucul
    lucul 8 May 2020 07: 47 New
    +4
    This is the syllable

    This is yes)))
    The author also forgot to mention the obvious ... As the experience of Syria showed, any wheeled armored vehicles weighing more than 20 tons, at the side of the roadside, becomes an immovable piece of metal stuck in the mud after rain. This is true for all MRAPs, for American, for Turkish, for ours ... But the BTR-82 does not have such a problem - the lack of cross-country ability does not suffer due to the large mass of BTR-82))) And it’s quite capable of moving along rough terrain after rain. And this is a very important nuance))))
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 8 May 2020 08: 05 New
      0
      And this is a very important nuance

      Typhoon-K?
      1. Snail N9
        Snail N9 8 May 2020 09: 17 New
        +7
        And I, the black Ukrainians with Kalash and BK drawers on their heads like ....
        And on the topic ... in defense of the RPG-7: in the city, the battle is in the near and middle zone - at the forefront, in close contact, just the fighters with the RPG-7 shooting from windows, cellars, hatches, etc., and quickly hiding none of them They are not sitting there and not waiting for a response - at the same time, several people were shmallowing from an RPG and a take-off, but they are from convenient places from a distance of 1-2 km, just covered from an ATGM. Something like this. In vain, the author rolls a barrel on an RPG - he fired at a target once, went nuts from this and, under the impression, wrote this nonsense about an RPG, what they say, this is an "ineffective" weapon for suicide bombers, yeah ..... go and forgot how many guys from Hitler Youth and Volkssturmists burned Soviet tanks in urban battles, with relatively primitive faust ...
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 8 May 2020 09: 27 New
          +1
          Quote: Snail N9
          in defense of RPG-7: in the city, the battle is in the near and middle zone, at the front edge in close contact just the fighters with RPG-7 are firing from windows, cellars, hatches, etc.

          In theory, this increases the value of equipment, which can be supplied with all kinds of KAZs in proper quantities. Those. more of an argument in favor of the Boomerangs, no?
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 8 May 2020 10: 41 New
          +3
          Quote: Snail N9
          fighters with RPG-7 firing from windows, cellars, hatches, etc.

          It’s not very good for health to shoot like that
        3. bk0010
          bk0010 8 May 2020 16: 47 New
          +6
          Quote: Snail N9
          just fighters with RPG-7 firing from windows, cellars, hatches
          The RPG has a problem with this: you need 2 meters of empty space in the back, otherwise you will be fucked up by the exhaust itself.
          Quote: Snail N9
          and quickly hiding
          And this is the problem: a shot from an RPG resembles a hit on the ear with a board, disorienting, you won’t immediately escape.
          Quote: Snail N9
          how many guys from the Hitler Youth and Volkssturm burned Soviet tanks in urban battles, relatively primitive Fausts ....
          Not as many as they usually think, 200-250 out of 1800 lost, rather strained by the fact that the kid can destroy the tank at all.
          1. mvg
            mvg 9 May 2020 14: 14 New
            +1
            Not as many as usually thought, 200-250 out of 1800 lost

            Then we recall the two Chechen wars ... and thousands of BTT burned. Syria and several thousand MBT and armored personnel carriers in cities ... Is that better?
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 9 May 2020 18: 53 New
              +2
              Quote: mvg
              two Chechen wars ... and thousands of BTT burned. Syria and several thousand MBT and armored personnel carriers in cities ...

              What are "thousands" - "millions" of burnt infantry fighting vehicles.
              With the illiterate use of technology, if the enemy needs it, it will be burned: you will find a bunch of firewood and matches even in the most backward country.
            2. georgiigennadievitch
              georgiigennadievitch 22 June 2020 12: 42 New
              0
              And this was not because the tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers were bad, but because the personnel and commanders were not trained in combat and operations in the city. In conditions of dense urban development, it was granotomyers that pose the greatest danger to armored objects. From the window, from the basement, from around the corner, from the gateway ... yes to the side ... How is it with V. Terkin? - it’s only threatening in appearance, but deaf and blind in fact ... In the city ahead, rushed motorized gunners with artillery and air gunners, combat engineer units and flame throwers should attack, and tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, etc. must act as a moving firearm for their fire support, direct-fire destruction of enemy tanks, guns, bunkers, defense units, under cover of fire motorized riflemen on call and do not climb forward themselves.
    2. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 9 May 2020 14: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: lucul
      This is true for all MRAPs, for the American, for the Turkish, for ours ... But the BTR-82 has

      That's just in Syria and the BTR-82 stuck.
      1. Starshina
        Starshina 11 May 2020 20: 19 New
        -1
        With the advent of drones, large armored personnel carriers are out of date forever!
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 11 May 2020 21: 45 New
          0
          Why all of a sudden? A small drone will not fly far and the charge is small, it will not hit at least a slightly protected target. And the big one is expensive and easily goes astray. Well, even if cluster munitions with self-aiming elements did not bury them, then drones have no chance.
        2. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 12 May 2020 01: 24 New
          0
          Quote: Starshina
          With the advent of drones, large armored personnel carriers are out of date forever!

          The events in Libya unambiguously hint that no (and in the last offensive in Idlib, after the number of air defense installations there grew more than 4 units). The main thing is not to neglect air defense.
    3. Starshina
      Starshina 11 May 2020 20: 15 New
      0
      The drones still move it or not, it will still be destroyed ...
  • Glory1974
    Glory1974 8 May 2020 09: 50 New
    +4
    This is the syllable

    Well what can I say, thanks to the author for respect and kind words to readers.
    because, as usual with us, 80% of the commenting mass did not understand anything, especially without complicating themselves with reading. However, the usual thing.

    Perhaps I will refrain from commenting, or else they will write a third article
  • max702
    max702 8 May 2020 15: 37 New
    +3
    Or maybe an BTR-87? Dimensions are sane, any engine can be shoved, there is a mine mine, internal dimensions are not bad, it can float, components and assemblies from the 80th

    1. prodi
      prodi 8 May 2020 17: 44 New
      -1
      and if you straighten the board with additional protection and spit on buoyancy, generally moronic for heavy wheeled vehicles, then what the doctor ordered
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 8 May 2020 23: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: max702
      Or maybe an BTR-87?

      What about the BTR-90? 8 tons more armor than 80s. Moreover, he was adopted, only the troops did not enter. The factory workers offered to re-arrange it in the manner of BMP-3, so that in addition to the side ones, they could also make an exit from behind, but the Moscow Region did not order them (the bosses, like boutiques, went to foreign exhibitions, choosing something imported).


      1. prodi
        prodi 9 May 2020 07: 56 New
        +2
        there is still such a moment: the location of the landing above the second axis makes it more vulnerable to undermining; the front location of the MTO solves all the risks of frontal projection protection and a modest price. The only thing that seems still desirable is to move the driver from the first axis, at least to the second
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 9 May 2020 08: 59 New
          +3
          Quote: prodi
          there is still such a moment: the location of the landing above the second axis makes it more vulnerable to undermining; the front location of the MTO solves all the risks of frontal projection protection and a modest price. The only thing that seems still desirable is to move the driver from the first axis, at least to the second

          Once I watched a film about the creation of the BMP-3. It pays attention to things that you usually don’t think about. For example, according to technical specifications, the frontal armor was supposed to hold a 30mm caliber projectile. The BMP turned out to have a heavy nose. To balance it, the engine was moved to the stern. An amphibious assault landing was in the center of the vehicle, that is, the most comfortable place. If we take into account that most of the time armored personnel carriers are with people, it’s transporting troops to a given area, then landing in the center of the vehicle is a big plus (they get less tired).
          BTR-90 built on the same principle: powerful forehead, engine at the rear, landing in the center. Evolutionary development of the BTR-60-70-80. Then managers came to the Moscow Region and put a fashionable door in the back at the forefront, and remove the engine from there. And, if according to the technical assignment there is a requirement that the forehead holds a 30mm projectile, and there is also an engine in front, then with some crutches it is necessary to correct the balancing of the machine. One of the solutions - the main weapon was shifted to the ass. I would not be surprised if the turret is not in the center of the longitudinal line of the hull, but shifted to the left, since the engine compartment is front-right, and this also needs to be somehow balanced. And it is not a fact that the "Boomerang" on the water will not bury its nose until the troop compartment is loaded, since it is the same in the stern. And the fact that the Boomerang weighs 34 tons does not mean that the crew is better protected than the 24-ton BTR-90.
          1. prodi
            prodi 9 May 2020 09: 55 New
            0
            The balancing of the front-engine nose can be accomplished by strengthening the side armor of the landing (rear) compartment and its greater height to the main body, i.e. in a landing vehicle it’s more logical to do the opposite to the tank layout. Well, what is rocking is the least evil.
          2. Starshina
            Starshina 11 May 2020 20: 25 New
            0
            Can you check for yourself?
        2. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 9 May 2020 19: 59 New
          0
          Quote: prodi
          The only thing that seems still desirable is to move the driver from the first axis, at least to the second

          Two cars.
          One has a V-shaped bottom (a variant of mine protection). And the BTR-90, which is with a flat bottom. Pay attention to the length of the red lines. This is the distance from the site of the explosion of the mine and the car body. The greater the distance, the less impact on the machine. And who will suffer the most from hitting a mine? If the explosion is in the center - again, our draft is higher + double bottom, the space between the floor of the armored personnel carrier and the bottom is occupied by razdatki shafts, etc. + some other protection (mentioned in the BTR-90 advertisement)
          1. prodi
            prodi 10 May 2020 09: 12 New
            +1
            I don’t want to compare these options, it’s obviously better that the driver doesn’t sit properly
            ,
            but somehow
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 10 May 2020 20: 00 New
              +1
              Quote: prodi
              it’s just obviously better that the driver doesn’t sit like that, but somehow

              This is a Serbian armored personnel carrier "Lazar" and its driver sits in the same way as ours:

              1. prodi
                prodi 11 May 2020 07: 11 New
                +1
                thanks, I know, I just didn’t find anything suitable for anyone to demonstrate the idea, I’m probably running ahead of the horse
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 11 May 2020 12: 26 New
                  0
                  Quote: prodi
                  I just didn’t find anything suitable for anyone to demonstrate the idea,

                  The driver sits far away except for the GTK Boxer (Germany), but for floating armored personnel carriers this option is unlikely to succeed.
                  1. prodi
                    prodi 11 May 2020 13: 09 New
                    0
                    yes you are right and you couldn’t run ahead of the horse

                    but it’s clear where the legs grow from Boomerang
                    1. Starshina
                      Starshina 11 May 2020 20: 38 New
                      0
                      Which car will you choose Mercedes or Lada?
                2. DDT
                  DDT 11 May 2020 14: 25 New
                  0
                  Beautiful beast! What kind of car?
                  1. prodi
                    prodi 11 May 2020 15: 06 New
                    +1
                    which on the right is VBCI, then was Atom

                    and here it is, "the terror that flies on the wings of the night." Boomerang
                3. alexmach
                  alexmach 11 May 2020 20: 44 New
                  0
                  And what will he see then sitting there?
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Grits
      Grits 11 May 2020 10: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: max702
      Or maybe an BTR-87?

      That's just our Moscow Defense Ministry reacted very kindly to him and safely forgot
    5. Starshina
      Starshina 11 May 2020 20: 22 New
      -1
      Dream grenade launcher ...
  • georgiigennadievitch
    georgiigennadievitch 22 June 2020 12: 19 New
    0
    It is not very clear why the "author" unleashed his pathos on the RPG-7? During his service, he repeatedly fired from it (at the school, as a junior officer on exercises, etc.). It is more difficult to miss from it than to hit. (This is for information to those special amirals who, on the basis of their ineptitude and blunders, make superficial and non-firing, but unprofessional conclusions.) In addition, no one equates RPGs with ATGMs. And the range and armor penetration are different. So after all, an infantryman (motorized rifleman) in a trench or in an attack has to rely on his beloved, on what he has at hand - (RPG in each compartment), rather than waiting for someone there from somewhere to hit the armored target moving on it. And how the RPG "affects" the adversary, I had the opportunity to personally observe. Outside in the tank turret there is a small hole, but a decent shred is torn out inside .Farewell to the crew. Therefore, abandon the RPG, inexpensive and reliable, especially against armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, converted from pickup trucks, etc. it makes no sense at all. This part of the author's text is an empty concussion of the air. As for the armored personnel carriers, then, in fact, you need to decide on their function - is it a bullet-proof anti-splinter transporter or some kind of combat vehicle with a claim to the function of a tank? And who is against the new combat vehicles? 57 mm, with modern ATGM modules, reliable mine and anti-drone protection? More armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, good and different, but based on common platforms and modules and not very expensive.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 8 May 2020 06: 10 New
    +2
    The military should answer this question, and what exactly is needed for the army. Everything comes from their requirements. What is the concept of application. Perhaps the good old BTR-60 may be in demand with improvements.
    1. Hagen
      Hagen 8 May 2020 07: 30 New
      +9
      Quote: Strashila
      Perhaps the good old BTR-60 may be in demand with improvements.

      You are clearly joking! "60" will not fix any modifications. He has outlived his term, finally, like the whole line "60" - "80". As for the improvements, I will say that it is often easier and more expedient to build a new one than to repair and modernize the old one. The fact that the car is needed more secure than the BTR-82XXX, I have no doubt. Whether it will be a boomerang or another, but not something that is supplied in large quantities today. Although I do not agree with the author in everything. I was shooting with RPGs (different) for 6 years, even though this was not my main specialty. I will say this, putting a 300-400 m grenade into the size of even an BTR-60 is not a great problem for an average grenade launcher. RPGs - weapons of African and Central Asian rogue? A rash opinion. Despite the fact that in the conflicts of recent decades, it is these "rogues" that give the "civilized" a lot of problems. Whether to pray for an RPG or not to pray is who will join which "party". Nevertheless, a simple infantryman in the footage of the chronicles does not have an ATGM behind his back, but a pair of something like an RPG-22 sticking out.
      Quote: Strashila
      What is the application concept

      Anyone discussing the place of the armored personnel carrier in the defense and offensive would recommend referring to the BUSV part 3. There it is clearly seen that from the front edge to the "rear" only 200m and for the life of an armored personnel carrier with a crew, this does not play a big role. In other cases, I believe that in addition to security and mine resistance, the so-called. "situational awareness", in Russian - instrumental assistance in identifying dangerous targets.
      1. Strashila
        Strashila 8 May 2020 09: 39 New
        -3
        It depends on how you look at it. The body of the classic BTR-60 is open, to put it simply, the body, in which nothing interferes with the division into control with the driver and the landing, make a double bottom for the driver and fill it with water (as they do in South Africa to extinguish the blast wave), install an additional one in the landing. " floating "armored capsule based on the air suspension from the truck.
      2. Tavrik
        Tavrik 8 May 2020 13: 03 New
        +5
        In other cases, I believe that in addition to security and mine resistance, the so-called. "situational awareness", in Russian - instrumental assistance in identifying dangerous targets.


        Absolutely correct. We can laugh at network-centric wars as much as we like, but if the crew of the tank, armored personnel carrier, etc. He knows that everything around him is done only from what he sees directly in front of him and hears in headphones - this is a deliberate loss.
    2. Tavrik
      Tavrik 8 May 2020 12: 56 New
      -1
      The trouble is that military science, which should answer the question "what is needed", is absent.
      1. Genry
        Genry 8 May 2020 17: 56 New
        0
        Quote: Tavrik
        The trouble is that military science, which should answer the question "what is needed", is absent.

        Do you like in a movie:
        "Do you see a gopher? So I don't see it - but he is ...".
        If you have not seen and do not know, then this does not give you reason to draw conclusions and declare them as a fact.
        1. Tavrik
          Tavrik 10 May 2020 19: 47 New
          0
          Of course, I have seen and know not everything .. but such peremptory statements can be made either by a representative of that very "science", or by a person who is extremely far from this problem.
          Tell us, "the poor and the poor," which of the wheeled-tracked vehicles military science considers promising, and what is not?
  • Nehist
    Nehist 8 May 2020 06: 14 New
    +9
    Um ... Dear Roman. If you fired once with an RPG-7, then you are clearly not a specialist, and you know how to manage to swing 300 meters ... Next ... An armored personnel carrier has never been considered a means of supporting infantry (for this, IFVs were created if you do not know ) In general, I still did not understand what you wanted to say in such a long article ?!
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 8 May 2020 06: 37 New
      +6
      With tongue removed. Thanks for the wise words. And they ride on armor not only from behind mines, but because it is easier to dismount on an unshielded side and begin to organize defense, but in one or two hatch it does not work out. Checked and more than once!
      And the TOU operator lives by logic even less than the shooter from an RPG.
      In general, one "expert" answered another.
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 8 May 2020 07: 24 New
        +3
        One thing struck me ... At a range of a direct shot, miss a stationary target .... You need to be able to
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 8 May 2020 10: 48 New
          +3
          Without experience - easy.
      2. V.I.P.
        V.I.P. 8 May 2020 08: 14 New
        +3
        To make the ATGM operator live longer and shoot more often there is a javelin and a bunch of similar foreign products. Shot and changed position))) ... ... But don't shout that "Cornet" is the coolest on the planet. As soon as we can do something like a javelin (while smearing it now), they will immediately start writing about the lack of analogue in the world)))) .. SU-57, Orion and the like as an example ...
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 8 May 2020 08: 54 New
          0
          Um ... And then someone spoke about ATGM? Dear, read carefully! ATGMs and RPGs are generally different things
          1. V.I.P.
            V.I.P. 8 May 2020 09: 20 New
            +2
            Carl Gustav 4 generations are already experiencing with a homing missile, and not a grenade. Together with the Americans. A grenade launcher will fire an ATGM rocket. True range of this rocket is 1km. or a little further.
            1. V.I.P.
              V.I.P. 8 May 2020 09: 22 New
              +4
              Panzerfaust 3 and Karl Gustav 3/4 with a modern pizza and ballistic calculator firing range 800-1000 m ..... Realistically assess the position
        2. Starshina
          Starshina 11 May 2020 20: 51 New
          0
          And all in a single copy!
      3. garri-lin
        garri-lin 8 May 2020 11: 41 New
        +9
        Riding on armor is elementary calmer. Sidish, cool head. "You cut the chip". You are responsible for yourself. Not dependent on anyone, but on the contrary, as if gape depend on you. More in case. And in the box there is nothing to keep your eyes and brains busy. You start to wind yourself up. This confuses the mood. Nerves burn.
      4. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 9 May 2020 06: 45 New
        +1
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        because it’s easier to dismount for an unshielded side and start organizing a defense

        And shooting from 2 sides? how then to organize defense?
        1. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins 9 May 2020 08: 02 New
          +1
          Well, Nikolaevich, there may be many options, you won’t foresee everything ... What if a special forces officer hooks magnetic mines through the sewer hatch to the bottom?))) laughing
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 9 May 2020 09: 30 New
            +1
            Quote: Leader of the Redskins
            What if a special forces soldier hooks magnetic mines to the bottom through the sewer hatch?)))

            A manhole on a dirt road in a wooded mountainous area? what That's cool !!! good fellow What harmful are these malicious saboteurs! am
  • BARKAS
    BARKAS 8 May 2020 06: 17 New
    +4
    The clever fighter of the modern army with this thing may perhaps show something, but not for long.

    This "short-term" is often enough.
  • Amateur
    Amateur 8 May 2020 06: 21 New
    +4
    Wonderful! Only I did not understand what exactly was being discussed: the comments of the sofa iksperdov with the VO or the real characteristics of combat vehicles. If "iksperdov", then why discuss us. Everyone has their own correct opinion.
    Well, if the real characteristics - then absolutely everything written in the article corresponds to the most fashionable modern trend “highly likely”.
  • Dmitry from Voronezh
    Dmitry from Voronezh 8 May 2020 06: 22 New
    +2
    Travel article. The advantages of the Boomerang over the BTR-82 are objectively described. What can you say here? The main thing is that "Boomerang" did go into series. Although now, during the economic turbulence, the chances of launching into a series are few. But I want to believe that in the foreseeable future the machine will end up in the troops, since there is a great need for it - people should be protected, increasing the level of protection on the battlefield.
    1. Genry
      Genry 8 May 2020 18: 11 New
      +2
      Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
      Travel article.

      Hack!
      The author did not even look at the news on the Boomerang chassis.
      https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3982034.html

      "Boomerang" has already completed preliminary tests, according to the results of which some modifications have been made. In particular, the armored hull has been slightly expanded, the displacement and, accordingly, the buoyancy of the combat vehicle will increase, "the VPK said. The company added that as a result," on combat vehicles capable of operating on water, it will be possible to enhance armor protection with additional attachments. "
      In addition to increased buoyancy, the new hull will make it possible to more comfortably accommodate troops in full gear. "This will have a positive effect on the speed of dismounting the landing force from the car, and on reducing its fatigue during long marches," the press service of the "VPK" noted.
  • svp67
    svp67 8 May 2020 06: 30 New
    11
    wheeled BTR K-16 and tracked BMP K-17
    A photo of "TRACKED" K-17 is it possible? "Boomerang" is a heavy wheeled platform and on its basis are created armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, tanks, self-propelled guns and many other combat vehicles, but they are all wheeled
    In general, the Boomerang can swim. But it’s better not to engage in this anachronism, but to develop more useful engineering troops in this regard, which can throw not only heavy equipment over the water barrier,
    Yeah ... let's, following the example of the Indians, create a mass technique that will drive only where it is dry and into the water neither with a wheel nor a caterpillar. An APC, since the author has come to the conclusion that it is just a vehicle delivering infantry to the front edge, MUST swim. And it's not worth leaving everything to the engineering troops in terms of overcoming water barriers. Someone on something should be the first to be on the other side to seize and hold the bridgehead. And it will be much better if this "something" will have at least some kind of armor, more powerful weapons, an engine and high cross-country ability, and most importantly there will be a lot of them, so that in one "wave" more troops would land on the enemy shore
    RPG-7 (as well as AKM) today is the weapon of an African rogue, a rebel in the jungle and a pirate on a longboat. The clever fighter of the modern army with this thing may perhaps show something, but not for long.
    You can immediately see a "knowledgeable", far from a "couch" specialist ... once he shot from an RPG and "eyes opened."
    The history of recent military operations shows that basically it is necessary to fight not on the front line with units similar to you, but semi-partisan armed formations with appropriate tactics of action. They hit the columns and there the grenade launchers work to the fullest.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 8 May 2020 23: 39 New
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      "Boomerang" is a heavy wheeled platform and on its basis are created armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, tank, self-propelled guns ...

  • Free wind
    Free wind 8 May 2020 06: 35 New
    +8
    Our soldiers did not particularly rely on armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, they preferred to ride on armor. Many of us laughed at the Americans in Afghanistan, the first mine and they will ride on the armor like us, but FIG. Of course you need a car with excellent mine protection, with excellent armor and landing from the stern. We have so far nothing better than Boomerang. Multi-fuel, any diesel engine can run on diesel and kerosene. To operate on gasoline, the Fuel Start Start changes. only now it works on gasoline for a short time, 15-30 minutes. and the engine of kryndets. By the way, the Germans probably started talking about strengthening mine protection when they ran into our mined dogs. The explosion occurred under the fighting compartment of the tank. All with the upcoming HOLIDAY OF THE GREAT VICTORY !!!!! All peace and good !!!!!! And those who call for war, but to everyone who repeats it: shooting on the spot from a slingshot in the balls. smile
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 8 May 2020 17: 27 New
      +4
      Quote: Free Wind
      the first mine and they will ride on the armor like we do,

      They have at least 2 reasons not to ride on armor:
      1. there is no armored vehicles with which you could jump without breaking your bones (all high),
      2. If the insurance says that he must sit under the armor, the fighter will sit under the armor.
  • pmkemcity
    pmkemcity 8 May 2020 06: 54 New
    +4
    Horses mixed in a bunch, people ...
    The author, for the sake of his idea, puts the eighties in unusual conditions for it, and the boomerang, on the contrary, puts it in a favorable light.
    1. Small war, for example, to clean up the liberals of the immediate Moscow region. What technique do you need? What properties should it have? Motor resources - yes. Swim - no. Mine protection - yes. Protection against WMD factors - no. The presence of various kinds of expensive sensors - yes. The possibility of firing a landing on the move - no. Amount - sufficient to arm one division. Dzerzhinsky.
    2. The Great War in Europe. The opposite is true. Motor resource - no. Swim - yes. Mine protection - no. Protection against weapons of mass destruction - yes, from here and the requirement to fire on the move, overcoming the zone of infection with weapons of mass destruction. The possibility of mass production in war conditions - yes, but realizing that there can be no production in a modern war, there should be a lot of these armored personnel carriers already in peacetime. and they must be field maintainable. I would add on my own what there is no water unit, except for a motorbike (with interference) - the function of a mobile dugout (sleeping at least while sitting, or side by side, warm up in winter, etc., in general, "live" for long days on the front line) ...
    We get two different armored personnel carriers - the counterguerrilla and front-line workaholic.
    1. DDT
      DDT 8 May 2020 20: 29 New
      -1
      Quote: pmkemcity
      2. The Great War in Europe. The opposite is true. Motor resource - no. Swim - yes. Mine protection - no. Protection against weapons of mass destruction - yes, from here and the requirement to fire on the move, overcoming the zone of infection with weapons of mass destruction. The possibility of mass production in war conditions - yes, but realizing that there can be no production in a modern war, there should be a lot of these armored personnel carriers already in peacetime. and they must be field maintainable. I would add on my own what there is no water unit, except for a motorbike (with interference) - the function of a mobile dugout (sleeping at least while sitting, or side by side, warm up in winter, etc., in general, "live" for long days on the front line) ...

      Well, about the unnecessary mine defense in Europe, it’s you, my friend, who got excited ... You’ll come to my simple European quarter without mine protection, you won’t leave it from me ... And at the same time I’ll control the RPG-7 ladies. European Srendesian rogue wassat
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 8 May 2020 23: 25 New
        0
        War - in Europe, which quarter? How to get there through the ruins?
        1. DDT
          DDT 9 May 2020 01: 36 New
          +2
          Are you one of those that you hope, after a nuclear, well, or at worst bio-chemical bombardment, for a walk on the healing waters of Nice? I hasten to disappoint, I have a basement. Without a direct hit, Iskander won’t succeed ... So, whether it’s through rubble, along paths, but without a mine, you’ll be fun shell-shocked stacks, and whether in Bomerang, in BTR-80/82/87, it’s like lucky
          1. pmkemcity
            pmkemcity 9 May 2020 20: 25 New
            0
            Quote: DDT
            ... I have a basement.

            Dude! Yes you are a hero!
      2. pmkemcity
        pmkemcity 9 May 2020 20: 21 New
        0
        Quote: DDT
        ... I will give

        This is your everything. Shut up and give. Wake up "besikami" waving in the windows meeting eighties.
        1. DDT
          DDT 9 May 2020 22: 11 New
          0
          Quote: pmkemcity
          Shut up and give.

          Come over. Catch up, still give ... lol
          1. pmkemcity
            pmkemcity 10 May 2020 05: 12 New
            -1
            Quote: DDT
            Come over. Catch up, still give ...

            Racer! Learn this as our Father! Will have something to tell, getting out of his "dugout".
            1. DDT
              DDT 10 May 2020 12: 42 New
              -2
              Judging by the photographs of pigs, and by the syllable baboon?
              Shove propaganda further to Comrade Kiselev and Russian Spring.
              All the best.
              1. pmkemcity
                pmkemcity 10 May 2020 17: 01 New
                -1
                It offends me that they are with us. not in europe or states.

                Tashkent himself.

                Nice water? I hasten to disappoint, I have a basement. Without a direct hit, Iskander will not work ... So, whether in the rubble, on the paths, or without a mine, you’ll be fun shell-shocked stacks

                Cross yourself already! "Tashkent man" from Nice.
          2. Grits
            Grits 11 May 2020 11: 14 New
            +1
            Quote: DDT
            Come over. Catch up, still give.

            Duc, they arrived already ... They set the flag - and vice versa. No one was catching up.
            1. DDT
              DDT 11 May 2020 14: 24 New
              0
              Quote: Gritsa
              Quote: DDT
              Come over. Catch up, still give.

              Duc, they arrived already ... They set the flag - and vice versa. No one was catching up.

              I didn’t want to offend anyone, but I would have to. Caught up and still gave WE. And for what we caught up and gave, our country is no more. There are debris. One is bigger than the other. But judging by the comments and this big wreck is no better than the rest.
  • 501Legion
    501Legion 8 May 2020 07: 15 New
    +6
    just the same, instead of BTR82 it is very necessary, in general, that relic of the past should be left behind for a long time.
    1. Grits
      Grits 11 May 2020 11: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: 501Legion
      instead of BTR82, it’s very necessary,

      And for me, it’s not INSTEAD, but ADDITIVES. The only question is - in one unit or in different purposes. Here I am not special.
  • Nehist
    Nehist 8 May 2020 07: 31 New
    -4
    By the way, mine protection ... If this is an ambush, then mines are set to damage BT and where the infantry is not important. Bzik with mine protection is a goofy goob cut
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 8 May 2020 08: 50 New
      11
      Well, watch the 1000500 VCA bombings video. It looks like this, at night or in the afternoon - all sorts of difficult kids, otherwise the men dig a couple of bags under the road. And after taking off the window / knoll undermine the report. As soon as the jammers began to carry, they switched to a wired system. While the dust settles, they jump into mopeds and after 10 minutes already in the neighboring village, with an alibi.

      Those who faced such a war came to one conclusion - all columns must be saturated with explosion-proof transport. This solved several problems at once:
      - minimization of losses during patrolling;
      - inefficiency of the lungs of the VCA. To dig a small bag / bucket there - earlier it led to the failure of the equipment, to the wounded / corpses. Now this leads to a slight fright and after 10 minutes the convoy is already moving again.
      - consolidation of IEDs, that is, 4-5 bags are already being buried under the report. And this is not to pull out of your pocket. And look for missing keys on the sidelines. That is, the chance to catch / destroy such bombers is significantly increased.
      - for control forces, it is better if the cell lays one large landmine on the road than 5-6 small ones.
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 8 May 2020 09: 01 New
        -1
        N-yes ... How tired I am of template thinking ... Have you created at least one IED? There are no 5 bags ...
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 8 May 2020 09: 13 New
          +4
          Well now, for any Western coalition, the standard is the equivalent of 50kg + TNT of roadside prikop. I don’t remember the least in the news. When two Americans died in January, they claimed 150 kg in Oshkosh, injured in a trawl, and Oshkosh tore.

          Cars were popular in Iraq - but that didn’t take root in Afghanistan. Rather, it took root in a peaceful place. The military developed tactics against this.

          In Mali, cars are used for ramming attacks. VBSI incidentally at one time withstood a pickup truck.

        2. DDT
          DDT 9 May 2020 13: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: Nehist
          N-yes ... How tired I am of template thinking ... Have you created at least one IED? There are no 5 bags ...

          I fully support. People do not know that in any box, after the explosion of a simple mine under the bottom, at least half of the passengers are precomatous, and the other half with fractures of varying severity. And when on the armor, nearby stunned are lying around ... But how should the soldier be protected?
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 8 May 2020 11: 15 New
        +2
        Quote: donavi49
        they switched to a wired system.

        Wires are easily detected by related equipment

        Quote: donavi49
        Those who faced such a war came to one conclusion - all columns must be saturated with explosion-proof transport.

        Not a fact.
        Rather, "it is necessary to conduct normal engineering reconnaissance and conduct mine clearance". Georadars, special machines such as "Buffalo" with a "paw", robots with a manipulator and the like appeared.
        1. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 8 May 2020 21: 49 New
          0
          Quote: Spade
          Not a fact.
          Rather, "it is necessary to conduct normal engineering reconnaissance and conduct mine clearance". Georadars, special machines such as "Buffalo" with a "paw", robots with a manipulator and the like appeared.

          Probably still automated monitoring of communication lines would not hurt. For example, drones.
    2. hohol95
      hohol95 8 May 2020 12: 00 New
      0
      One of the "Merkava 4" type vehicles hit a "barefoot" land mine with 400 kg in TNT equivalent. And there is no Merkava 4 tank.
      Many forgot about mine clearance in the USSR after the war, the highway (forgot the name) from the canvas of which several wagons of German explosives were removed! If not right - correct!
      1. +5
        +5 9 May 2020 10: 11 New
        +1
        Do you believe Javrei fables? Or about the 400 kg told hera laid them down? (mortgaged 100, 300 sold). Why lay 400 kg? Carrots and any other purpose and from a hundred tear. They had all the losses in 2006 solely from hitting a thousand Kornets ... Then the truth turned out that hez have mobile phones with cameras and carrying batteries and forgot about Kornetov’s mills.
        1. DDT
          DDT 9 May 2020 13: 29 New
          0
          Quote: 5-9
          Do you believe Javrei fables? Or about the 400 kg told hera laid them down? (mortgaged 100, 300 sold). Why lay 400 kg? Carrots and any other purpose and from a hundred tear. They had all the losses in 2006 solely from hitting a thousand Kornets ... Then the truth turned out that hez have mobile phones with cameras and carrying batteries and forgot about Kornetov’s mills.

          You read the comment. Equivalent Did you know that RDX, for example, is 4 times more powerful than TNT?
        2. hohol95
          hohol95 9 May 2020 15: 01 New
          0
          As I understand it, with your LITERATURE "kepso" (bad) - Baryatinsky "Israeli tanks in battle"!
          Are there any complaints about the mining of the Minsk-Moscow highway by the Germans?
    3. Ded_Mazay
      Ded_Mazay 9 May 2020 16: 19 New
      0
      Quote: Nehist
      Bzik with mine protection is a goofy goob cut
      Tell this to the relatives of our ATVs who died in Afghanistan.
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 9 May 2020 16: 31 New
        +1
        I will tell you how to make cumulative from a land mine !!! Whatever v-shaped bottom will not save !!! And as for the dynamic impact on the armor, I am generally silent !!! All to that in nutra at least shell-shocked !!! How did you get the deletants
        1. Ded_Mazay
          Ded_Mazay 9 May 2020 16: 49 New
          +1
          There is something to say in essence, acre of their "professionalism" in the manufacture of cumulative mines laughing

          PS https://topwar.ru/25068-protivominnaya-zaschita-sovremennyh-bronirovannyh-mashin-puti-resheniya-i-primery-realizacii.html
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 8 May 2020 07: 39 New
    +5
    Fir-trees! The whole article is written in the form of a set of "quotes" from "Wikipedia" and Internet articles like: "We swam ... we know! But we will not prove anything ...!" ... For each "point", one can object ... but "the problem is ... is it necessary? The questions raised in the article have already been" raised, raised, twitched ... and lowered and dropped in various articles! " As our "predecessors ..." said: "Let's argue about the taste of durian that we have not tried! Evaluate the benefits of cava that we did not drink! Judge the effectiveness of a drug that we did not receive treatment! Give a review of a film that we have not watched! If "answer" for each "thesis" of the article, then the commentary in this case should take a lot of time from the commentator ... and if at the same time - the feeling: 1. pouring from empty to empty; 2. crushing water in a sieve ... 3. confuse a fork with a bottle ... 4. "oh, not Gaius, Julius Caesar ... not Guy? - I'd rather go to cook dinner while waiting for my wife to come home from work on the occasion of the end of the current working days and the upcoming celebration ... the cognac is already prepared and tasted!
    1. Free wind
      Free wind 8 May 2020 15: 17 New
      0
      I have not tried many wastes of organisms, and I do not want to try at all, and I do not advise anyone to try. If anyone wants to, stick your face in the latrine, eat what is there, and advise whether it is worth repeating. I’m somehow far from that.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 8 May 2020 08: 14 New
    +2
    About TOU: it is being modernized, a tandem warhead with decent penetration, or a defeat of the target from above.
    The control over the wires is automated (you just need to keep the reticle on the target), the operator does not unmask himself with laser radiation, which in modern warfare will cause the installation of a smoke screen, at least.
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 8 May 2020 09: 01 New
      +3
      TOU and RPGs are generally different types of weapons
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 8 May 2020 09: 56 New
        +4
        This is understandable, I'm talking about the "archaic" TOU.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 8 May 2020 11: 17 New
      0
      Quote: 3danimal
      the operator does not unmask himself with laser radiation

      It does not matter. Most modern COECs use UV sensors. And without a "torch" ATGM does not exist.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 12 May 2020 05: 51 New
        0
        It’s safer for the operator, anyway. Fire will be opened to him (there are even options with an automatic turret to the source of half-light).
        Laser response systems are cheaper and more common.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 8 May 2020 08: 53 New
    +4
    And they forgot a moment: the technique for global wars (simple, cheap) and the peacetime technique for local wars are not the same thing ... But in any case, BTR82 should be treated with care.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 12 May 2020 05: 58 New
      0
      On the one hand, in the global war thousands of Stryker'o-in and Bradley of the latest modifications, Abramsov of the latest versions, hundreds (up to 1200) of which will have KAZ, and what is against them? Thousands of units of old equipment, or just a couple of hundred more or less modern (which will not change the general layout).
      This is if assuming the start of a huge meat grinder on land ...
      Fortunately, for her there are no goals, desires and means.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 12 May 2020 07: 43 New
        0
        In the global war on land, neither Bradley nor Abramsov will be enough .... even without KAZ.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 13 May 2020 07: 00 New
          0
          Suggest to use T-72 (without letters), T-62 and T-55? Against modern tanks? - Then you will need a lot of “cheap” crews, and even here there is no guarantee of success (the difference in efficiency is too big).
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 13 May 2020 07: 33 New
            0
            If it comes to a major war, then very quickly it will reach the reserves of T55-64-72 ......
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 14 May 2020 01: 15 New
              +1
              Which will be no one to manage. There are few people :( And there will be even less.
  • Freedim
    Freedim 8 May 2020 09: 05 New
    0
    I think so .. With a box of specialized tools, a certain type of work is faster and easier than with one hammer. Of course, there will be additional problems with supplies, repairs and other disadvantages of the lack of unification, but for certain tasks, even one soldier who has not passed into the "load 200" category will justify all the costs of training and the inconvenience of maintaining new equipment. Nobody forces us to abandon old conveyors, of which tens of thousands are pickled on "canned food". For certain tasks, where they will be more profitable, you can always uncover.
    shl. I do not believe in a full-scale war with "tank wedges" and other stereotypes .. and for local brawls, low-volume, expensive, but more advanced in terms of combat qualities, vehicles will be the best choice.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 12 May 2020 06: 00 New
      0
      You proceed from the considerations that the surviving fighter has real value for command. In fact, the more valuable is the inventory and equipment (it is better to keep the new one), IMHO.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 8 May 2020 09: 07 New
    +3
    If you look for a rational approach, then one type of technique will not do NOW!
    Universal in name, but it is not in any way, now shoving everywhere and everywhere, at least it’s not smart!
    For each task, its own specialized technique !!!
    Yes, it is difficult, expensive, tiring to maintain, maintain, use, but if it really saves the lives of fighters and contributes to the fulfillment of tasks, it must be done, it will have to be done!
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 8 May 2020 09: 27 New
    +5
    And that means the grenade launcher is disposable, because the BTR crew has optics and machine guns, and the pickup is not disposable and there are machine guns on it. And to run to one point from the stern in an ambush, which will always be along the road, is much better than from the sides. However, it will be too late to run out there, which is why they ride on the armor that the infantry dismounts with the start of the battle anyway.

    Mines are generally not considered seriously against the background of losses from other types of weapons. Yes, their effect can be reduced by simple means, such as hanging chairs to the ceiling, which is done even on a "tiger" without problems.

    As for the weight of 30 tons, I'm afraid that here the author has forgotten one very unpleasant moment, the specific pressure on the ground. Unlike a loaded wagon, the armored personnel carrier does not have a huge number of wheels that distribute its weight over a large area, while the failure of the road under vehicles weighing more than 20 tons is not a rare phenomenon. And in fact, this is the maximum weight for "centipedes" on 4 axles.

    Discussions about the engine and other things are meaningless, because no one bothered to increase the body a bit and stick at least a 500-horsepower engine, as on the BTR-90.

    The problem is precisely that, in principle, the level of security between 15 tons, 20, or 32 will not change, just as the purpose of the machine will not change. But fundamentally, the availability of the machine can change, both in quantity, because twice as heavy equipment is more expensive in everything, both in creation and in operation.
    1. Couchexpert
      Couchexpert 8 May 2020 10: 42 New
      +4
      Fundamentally, the protection on a 30-ton BTR does not really increase. Here the task is at least reduce the likelihood defeat, and not completely eliminate it. This is impossible even on tanks of 70 tons. And if an aluminum basin makes it through literally everyone, then the 30-tonne holds
      1. Shooting (existing and prospective). Foreshortening;
      2. DShK / Utes / Browning HB + large-caliber snipers based on their cartridges. Foreshortening;
      3. Shells automatic guns 20-30 mm with a good chance, although only in the forehead or at large angles / ranges;
      4. Explosion of explosive charge under the body Larger mass / powerthan the existing APCs.

      These are the key areas in which such technology is developing all over the world. This is something that was missing for a long time, but could be further developed. It is foolish to give examples of defeat from RPG / ATGM in the comments above - an armored personnel carrier will always be vulnerable to them. He has such a fate (unless it is the TBTR). After all, no one demands, for example, to reserve planes with cast iron (what if tanks break into the airfield!)? While the damage from the above means in modern combat much more likely and at least they try to minimize them.

      A few words about the cross / buoyancy. I will say this: if, while moving behind the tanks, the armored personnel carrier gets stuck somewhere and falls behind, then in general it’s not a big problem, but if it overtakes the tank (having crossed something extra), then it will definitely grab everything that is due to the tank and not neither mass nor mobility will save. Where ALREADY the tank didn’t pass / swim / crawl. The tank armored personnel carrier has nothing to do by definition. If we talk about conflicts of low intensity, then there all the ambush / min issues need to be solved by the complex interaction of the arms of service, the design of the armored personnel carrier itself will not play a special role here: the V-shaped bottom, high suspension, special seats, etc. help, of course, to some extent (and should be applied), but they will not completely eliminate losses.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 8 May 2020 11: 57 New
        +3
        30 mm shells can penetrate 70 mm, this, of course, is the top for them, but 30 mm of armor can already be written off. As for aluminum, the density of aluminum is, as it were, 3 times less than that of iron, so on the BMP-3 the same armor protects itself 40 mm, of course, it is not 40 mm steel, but you should not think badly about non-combustible aluminum alloys . But they are not suitable for tanks at all, it’s just an indecent size there, if even the equivalent of 80 mm is made of aluminum.

        In general, doubling the weight of the vehicle will in no way lead to doubling the armor, since the booked volume also increases. In the case of the armored personnel carrier, the only relief here is the weapon, which is the same on both the BTR-82A and the Boomerang. The latter will inevitably lead to the same question that arose regarding the KV-1, there are more problems due to weight, and the cannon, the most important element, is the same. Why is this necessary? Now, if there is a transition to a larger caliber, but then the mass of the gun with ammunition will grow, as will the volume of the fighting compartment for them.

        But in general, the Boomerang will ride from above in the same way, more eyes, faster dismounting. In a big war, when the main problem will not be an ambush, where the maximum ATGM is, but enemy aircraft and artillery, and the order will move only inside, the defeat will be something like a "Hellfire". And he just doesn't care.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 8 May 2020 09: 27 New
    -2
    Good article. A little more numbers would be a comparison of cost, quantity. And that’s all. Ideal. Thank.
  • English tarantas
    English tarantas 8 May 2020 09: 33 New
    -3
    I would like to object to my thought on this topic.
    Boomerang, of course, is good, BUT.
    The ancestors were not fools, the author writes that the honor of the car did not come in handy in Syria and the Donbass. Yes, but if Syria is banal a desert, then in Russia there are simply unimaginably many rivers, and in the Donbass, how many maneuvers were carried out? Drive along the roads to a city or village faster than cover the art, shoot back and also leave, this is not a march across an intersection if the enemy has a huge number of weapons, they will tell me, saying: "But how will positive buoyancy save you from an airplane / helicopter? " - yes, it will trite to save time on the way from point A to point B. Even I, living in an area that is not very rich in rivers, I can say that there are few bridges, their location is known in advance, but the rivers do not allow you to drive directly where you need to go, so as now to the question of weight - a knee-deep stream will not allow cars of large mass to pass, but this is so, the lyrics, because the BTR-82 is likely to get bogged down, and the Boomerang has a higher power density.
    As for riding on the armor painted below and in detail, intelligibly.
    As for landing from the stern, I personally think that you also need exits from the roof and an exit, at least 1 from the side, since corny can shoot at the machine from any side, and the side projection is still larger.
    Mine protection as a mandatory requirement for armored personnel carriers is, in my opinion, not so important, I doubt that the regular army will lay powerful landmines, it has better means, even barmalei, as the author remembered, have been using anti-tank systems for a long time.
    Therefore, I believe that Boomerang can not go into a series because of several questions:
    1. It’s good to fight in Syria, but there are river houses. Therefore, buoyancy should be optional.
    2. The mine base is certainly good, only the mass of the vehicle increases significantly, as well as the price, and whether the real enemy will massively use mine ambushes - I think not, but the APC will definitely be massive.
    3. The size is yes, it’s not the most important thing for a long time, because if necessary, they will fall, and they will see that even extra half a meter will give more survivability and ease of use than stealth. But we never forget that there are roads running under low contours of bridges, for a car you need to dig caponiers, look for shelters in which the car will not be visible, you need to go on surfaces at an angle. And for all the benefits of high growth: the ability to install good mine protection, more storage space, better visibility, more freedom for modularity, you should not get carried away with gigantism.
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 8 May 2020 09: 38 New
    +1
    For the first time I agree with Buffoon. We need a boomerang, like Kurganets. But there is one very unpleasant question, since we need a lot of Kurgan and Boomerangs, and in the future, ideally, they should replace both Soviet-made armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, the price of these devices is multiplied by a series .
  • Yrec
    Yrec 8 May 2020 09: 51 New
    +6
    The author made his "expert" conclusions by firing one RPG-7 at a target at the training camp. And now, from the height of his invaluable experience, he throws mud at other, no less tough, "experts". And he doesn’t understand, sick one, why is it that our brainless Ministry of Defense doesn’t order Boomerangs (as well as the Armata, Kurgan, SU-57, etc.) instead of the BTR-82? I explain to my friend "expert" on my fingers. Suppose I need a car for a week (the approximate lifespan of an armored vehicle in the war), there are a lot of potatoes at the dacha and I need to transport it to the city along a country road. Suppose there is no other option than buying a car. What will I buy for a week to transport potatoes from the dacha? "Zhiguli" or "Mercedes"? A week later, anyway, the car is kirdyk anyway. There is such an unfamiliar thing for "experts" as the economics of war. If you do not go into details, of which there are a lot, its meaning is to rivet more armored personnel carriers (infantry fighting vehicles, tanks, aircraft, etc.) than the enemy is able to knock out during battles. Practice shows that 90% of the cash park in armored vehicles is knocked out in 2 weeks / several months of intense battles (irrevocable, repair, it does not matter now). If you do not start reproduction / repair of armored vehicles in a short time in the required quantity, then the soldiers will have to fight on trucks and cars requisitioned from enterprises / individuals (greetings from gantruck). In the blessed West, which our "expert" is looking at, the logic of war is seen as follows: we stumble a weak enemy, we will not rock the boat on an equal footing, we will immediately surrender to a strong one. They even provide for surrender in the statutes. And they build their Armed Forces from this principle. Our methods of warfare differ radically. And therefore, our General Staff proceeds from the fact that in the event of an attack on us, the enemy will completely destroy our population, level settlements with the earth, there will be no "humane and enlightened liberation from tyranny". Therefore, in the short and medium term, our people will be driven by BTR-80/82, BMP-1/2/3, T-72, bullet from AK, dragged "urgent" and stay in the mob reserve for up to 60 years. Something like this.
    1. Diverter
      Diverter 8 May 2020 11: 27 New
      0
      You say it right! But! Do not you need to create new models of technology?
      1. LastPS
        LastPS 9 May 2020 23: 20 New
        +1
        It is necessary, of course. I don’t think we will succeed. We need a series, a large series, otherwise it’s all meaningless. Equipment must be produced in large batches, otherwise the price is prohibitive, and the number of defects is huge. But, as they say, "there is no money, and you are burning in your grandfather's brutes." After WWII, the Soviet Union did not have armored vehicles at all, but the union somehow understood their need and began to make the corresponding vehicles, first the 152nd, then the 60s. And you know what's the funniest thing? For some reason, these machines were quite consistent with the modern trends of those years. And then a bunch of commentators pounced on Skomorokhov, shouting that world manufacturers do not rummage, and mine protection and armor is a whim, and in general a cool warrior should not hide in an iron can. There is no money for boomerangs - that's all ... period. All these excuses of the 82nd are simply embarrassing to read.
        1. Diverter
          Diverter 13 May 2020 11: 01 New
          0
          So to release a large series, can you release a small one first? to test, try, break in the troops, etc. But then, taking into account the identified shortcomings and Wishlist from the military and other things, again break in, test, and so on. And after receiving positive emotions from the army, launching it in a large series with sending the 60-80 family to storage?
          1. LastPS
            LastPS 13 May 2020 11: 33 New
            0
            That is true, but the trials are very tight. The boomerang was shown to the general public in 2015, by this time a series of several cars had already been released, in five years the nifig had not changed, things are still there. A very characteristic situation for all new samples of the Russian military-industrial complex, which, as it were, hints at a certain impotence of the industry. One gets the feeling that they really can’t bring anything to mind. On the other hand, the economic situation is foul, and, as a result, the path of development is the gradual modernization of new models, which are available at the same time, at the expense of the latter. I’m not judging by this approach of the Ministry of Defense, it’s just a pity that the troops do not have the right, very needed modern models of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, which would be very useful in Syria, where there are a lot of IEDs and automatic guns - heavy machine guns. Horseradish with her with Armata, the T-72 upgraded with a head for local conflicts is enough, but the difference between the new generation of armored personnel carriers and the old is much more significant.
            1. Diverter
              Diverter 14 May 2020 20: 08 New
              0
              so fast, only cats will be born)))) better slowly and confidently than quickly like Italian armor. the very ones that are super cool, and then it turned out that the complete g ....
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 15 May 2020 08: 35 New
              0
              It is more likely that psychoses to replace Soviet developments in practice turn out to be psychoses.
    2. LastPS
      LastPS 9 May 2020 23: 02 New
      +3
      Your comment, in my opinion, is the only one that contains a rational grain. Unfortunately, I must admit that the absence of a boomerang in the troops is explained solely by financial considerations - the economy is at the bottom, but we need to arm ourselves somehow, so the modernized 72s and 82s go to the troops, according to the principle "better than now ". This objective reality is simple.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 8 May 2020 09: 56 New
    0
    ZIS 2 was discontinued not because of excessive penetration, this is a myth, it was just a huge marriage in the production of trunks, well, we did not know how to make such long, rather low-caliber, there was not enough technology, but when I had to adapt, I had to adapt. It was because of the technological complexity of the ZIS 2 that they did little, even towards the end of the war.
    1. bars1
      bars1 8 May 2020 11: 38 New
      -1
      About the ZiS-2. ZiS-3 at the time of the decision to remove ZiS-2 from production, completely coped with the defeat of enemy tanks at acceptable distances. But because of its caliber -76mm., Significantly exceeded the 57mm high-explosive fragmentation effect. ZiS-2 shell. Hence the great versatility of the ZiS-3. Also one of the reasons for the discontinuation of the ZiS-2.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 8 May 2020 12: 56 New
        +1
        Quote: bars1
        ZiS-3 at the time of the decision to remove ZiS-2 from production, completely coped with the defeat of enemy tanks at acceptable distances.

        In theory. In practice, in 1941 and in the first half of 1942, the armor penetration of 76-mm divisional guns did not exceed 30 mm at 300 m. The reason is the extreme shortage of BR-350A armor-piercing shells and the use of shrapnel shells "on strike" instead.
        Quote: bars1
        But because of its caliber -76mm., Significantly exceeded the 57mm high-explosive fragmentation effect. ZiS-2 shell. Hence the great versatility of the ZiS-3.

        Simply put, the Red Army had a choice: either to receive specialized anti-tank missiles in relatively small quantities, or to receive three to four times more divisional weapons instead. Given the fact that the reformation of the withdrawn from the battles and the formation of new rifle formations took place in huge volumes, and it was impossible to send formations without the base and firepower — artillery regiments — to the front — the choice between the guns was obvious.
        By July 10, 1941, 34 divisions were completely lost and another 87 divisions suffered heavy losses. From the beginning of the war until December 1, 1941, a total of 124 rifle divisions were disrupted and disbanded. To make up for this loss, it was necessary to carry out the formation of new units and formations on a large scale, providing them with the necessary weapons. It was also necessary to compensate for the loss of weapons in the troops of the army, so that they retain their combat effectiveness.

        Even more significant was the need for weapons for new formations. So, already in July 1941 it was necessary to form 71 divisions (56 divisions and 15 cd), in August 110 divisions (85 div and 25 cd), and in October 74 rifle brigades.
        © "Artillery supply in the Great Patriotic War 1941-45.

        By the way, ZIS-3 appeared only in the autumn of 1941 - and these were two parties for military tests. And in the series in 1941 was F-22-USV and its simplified versions.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 8 May 2020 10: 05 New
    0
    You are silent about Javelin, and why? Is that outdated? Range of 4 km. out of date? Maybe you consider outdated guidance of the rocket during its flight and the type of operator in danger? Well, there are remote controls. Interestingly, 30 seconds from a distance of 2 km. from the target, under fire, leaning out of the trench, with the presence of optical detection devices, looking at the target afraid to fart, so as not to start all over again, doesn’t it bother you?
    Speak RPG 7 is out of date? I would send you to the city on a tank, so that if you survive, you understand your stupidity. About the obsolete RPG tell the Israelis who burned perfectly from Merkava, though from the Vampire, but the meaning is the same: a grenade launcher against a tank.
  • bk0010
    bk0010 8 May 2020 10: 34 New
    +4
    The main enemy of the BTR-82 is a colleague with either a heavy machine gun or an automatic cannon.
    The main enemy of the armored personnel carrier is fragments of bombs and shells, it is from them that he must be guaranteed to protect.
    Somehow, the crossing of the Rhine, the Oder, the English Channel has completely receded into the background, most likely, there’s no need to fight there.
    And forcing the local govnotechka river is still relevant: we do not live in Syria.
    And it is replaced by just such a heavy vehicle, capable of not only delivering infantry to the battlefield, but also actually supporting it with fire and armor.
    Such a machine is called BMP. Boomerang is not heavy.
    And Russian soldiers in Syria still ride "on the armor", and not inside it, because the fear of being blown up by a mine is more than getting a bullet from a sniper.
    And they will ride on the armor: under the armor - sucks, regardless of its thickness.
    PS A new APC is needed, the Boomerang is quite suitable.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 8 May 2020 10: 52 New
      +2
      And forcing the local govnotechka river is still relevant: we do not live in Syria.


      Well, like this...


      There are no fools in the Politburo laughing
  • Olgerd Gediminovich
    Olgerd Gediminovich 8 May 2020 10: 46 New
    +3
    The criticism is quite detailed, I will not repeat myself particularly.
    I can not pass by a few points:
    1) no matter how good the Kurganets car is, the most important limitation for MO is cost.
    Simple examples - IS did not replace the T-34. The FG-42 did not replace the Mauser 98k. For one reason, the disproportionate cost. If you can make 10 instead of one weapon for the same money, it is unlikely that the choice will be in favor of expensive models.
    2) in addition to cost, the life time on the battlefield is also important. Colleagues have already written about this. My SME, where he served (the western border of the GDR), was designed for 20 minutes in battle! The opposing tank division of NATO should be stopped for this time in order for the tank regiment we are covering to have time to turn against it. After that, the kirdyk and the tank guys should have time to avenge the NATO members for us.
    The training of personnel is much more important by 20 minutes than the sophisticated means of delivery to the front line.
    Regarding the comparison of ATGMs and RPGs, I also add. If the battle is in an open field and the tank is one, then the ATGM steers unambiguously - for several kilometers you can unzip the tank before it detects the operator.
    If there are a lot of tanks, or the collision is not in an open field, but on rough terrain, then mobile granule throwers are much more efficient. The position changes after each shot, without waiting for an answer, this is a no brainer.
    Well, if the battle is in the village / city, then each fighter behind his back has a pair of RPG-26 / RSHG-2, or even more than something new. Although the old RPG-7 is not particularly worse. And not one tank / armored personnel carrier will fail.
  • Diverter
    Diverter 8 May 2020 11: 21 New
    +2
    Dear!
    in the previous comments have already sorted out the need for different types of BTT. but I would like to support the author on the one hand. Considering that ... "women no longer give birth" as before, it is necessary to put into service new, MORE protected armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. The life of a soldier is now much higher than in Soviet times. What will each of us choose? Move in Boomerang i.e. in an armored personnel carrier protected from mines and without the risk of a bullet from a sniper. Or on the armored personnel carrier 80 with the risk of getting the same bullet or splinter from the explosion? The same armored personnel carrier 80/82, I would send exclusively to the armament of "light" divisions (I do not like the word brigade in the military sense, let the locksmiths have it))). That is, to the mobilization units of the second / third echelon, as well as the military police and commandant's offices. There is a good grain in the article and the author's opinion is mostly correct.
    Author!
    RPG-7 is a very formidable and good weapon! In skillful hands! But in urban combat, it’s such a thing! You yourself write that basically there will be and are urban battles! And so if the monkey was given a grenade ..... For example, during the war of Egypt with Israel, the Union supplied the SAM. So the Egyptians after completing the training were the first to fill up 4 of their aircraft and one of ours. Therefore, they later sent representatives to them, because the Arabs could not understand why the rocket was knocking down.
  • Sarkazm
    Sarkazm 8 May 2020 11: 57 New
    -1
    As for the estimates of RPG-7, the author got excited, but for the rest, he agrees, and no. MTO in front, armored personnel carrier booking is quite bulletproof from four directions (sides, roof and feed), but the forehead against a heavy machine gun, anti-mine bottom resistance. Ramp or hatches in the stern. Buoyancy, I think it will not hurt.

    The Romanians re-arranged our BTR-70, what is the problem of doing the same if not during modernization, then it is not clear when manufacturing new BTR-82. We don’t have money for the Boomerang, as the author correctly noted, the money went wherever you want, but not where you need it, so now you need to face the truth, you just need it, cheaply and cheerfully.
  • Alexey G
    Alexey G 8 May 2020 12: 20 New
    +1
    I read the article, read the comments on the article. The article discusses the old as the world question of whether a new weapon is needed if there is an old and proven one.
    The author believes that the new is necessary and in its own right is right.
    The new weapon, as you know, overcomes the shortcomings of the old, but of course it acquires some shortcomings because, as many commentators have noticed, there are no perfect weapons! However, the enemy got used to our old weapons, he studied them in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, Syria and many other local conflicts and prepared tactics! Do not underestimate this! But the enemy has not studied new weapons and will have to adapt to the new reality, incurring losses! This gives an advantage at the beginning of the conflict, which, if used properly, should give an advantage and victory in the war. Especially when it comes to protecting soldiers. New realities must be taken into account, that is, the fact that our troops for many reasons have ceased to be so numerous as to sacrifice them since in conflicts of past years. I will say even more boldly that living force acts more carefully and success increasingly depends not on courage but on the strength of technology.
    The author is right that it’s difficult to climb into an old armored personnel carrier in a warrior and with modern weapons, and getting out of it in battle in a bustle can be even more difficult, and to ride all the way up in rain, wind, frost, under enemy fire is not comfortable and dangerous, and of course high losses can not be avoided here! It’s not for nothing that the sodates climbed up, not from a good life in an APC.
    Of course, by negligence, the author touched on the issue of RPGs and it was for this that he received a bunch of criticism aside. But logically, the author follows the same line that the new weapon pushes the old one over the side of history. Even the most acute critics understand deep down that he is right. Missile weapons were replaced by shell missiles due to the fact that the missile can be controlled in flight or it can do it itself, which gives it an advantage in flexibility and accuracy. Of course, in the future, weapons capable of thawing a new impetus in the development of these weapons may appear, but today the ATGM in terms of combating armored vehicles exceeds RPGs in range and accuracy. This does not mean that RPGs need to be abandoned, but it should be borne in mind that you will have to fight not only with them, but also with ATGMs, for which a 20 cm silhouette is not such a problem! But KAZ and active defense are able to withstand this!
    In addition, modern warfare is a hybrid of the classic and guerrilla warfare, therefore mines are the main weapon of partisans and terrorists, which means that the protection of infantry from mines is an important indicator! It is possible that mines are more dangerous than RPGs and ATGMs, which have been little talked about!
    1. Inboost wett
      Inboost wett 9 May 2020 08: 46 New
      -3
      You forget that this new weapon is only for us. And for the "barmaley" it is no longer new. They have already studied well all the Western counterparts from which our "innovators" copy all this. I would like to remind you that progress is a reduction in size while increasing capabilities, and most importantly, it is not even a reduction in size, but a reduction in the crew. There is neither one nor the other. However, as in the "new" tank.
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 9 May 2020 15: 58 New
        -1
        Firstly, our modern technology is not a complete analogue of the western one! This is overkill!
        No one has such an active defense as we have in the West! Afghanite, like the very idea of ​​active protection of armored vehicles, is also ours, and not Western! Israel has copied it with us! And now the Americans are trying!
        Armaments at Boomerang are all domestic with a 30-mm automatic cannon 2A42 with selective ammunition (ammunition of 500 rounds), a 7,62-mm PKTM machine gun (ammunition of 2000 rounds) and two twin launchers of the Kornet anti-tank missile system.
        32-stroke diesel engine UTD-510TR with a turbocharger capacity of XNUMX liters. with. at the same ours.
        Which NATO machine did we copy it from? With an American Stryker?


        And that they are twin brothers in your opinion?
        Ours weighs 34t, and the Stryker 18T! At Stryker, our armor is homogeneous in our multilayer! Continue to continue?
        Well, the engine is now in front of us, and the rear landing is like that of NATO so what? This is bad?
        And for the "barmaley" it is no longer new. They have already studied well all Western counterparts.

        And where are the barmaleys smashing the American and British armored personnel carriers? And who teaches them this art?
        Are they not NATO experts? I can only recall Yemen and Afghanistan, but our equipment has passed the school of execution since the time of Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Iraq!
        I want to remind you that progress is a reduction in size while increasing opportunities

        Well, let's actually. By size:


        See for yourself where the progress in aviation has gone. SU is bigger than old propeller planes!
        Now tanks


        The tanks became larger, certainly in length!
        Weapon


        increasing opportunities ???
        So it just often requires an increase in size! Or do you want a washing machine and a spacious bathroom measuring one and a half meters! Opportunities require a place or the magic of designers who cannot always do this!
        Reducing the crew is certainly good, but I remember how in the war with IL 2, the shooter at the rear was removed to reduce weight, and received fewer defense opportunities at the rear, and as a result, they increased the number of shot down ones, here you have the opportunities! Reducing one we reduce the other!
        And progress is determined not by absolute values, but by the enemy’s ability to withstand!
  • Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 8 May 2020 13: 47 New
    +2
    So, gentlemen, couches, with all my heart I wish you to check on yourself how it is, an RPG against a tank.
    It depends on the ammunition you use, although you don’t understand such a promise to become behind an armored personnel carrier ..
    they are by no means fools in a tank or infantry fighting vehicle, and they probably know how to use optics, cameras, thermal imagers and, most importantly, machine guns! And for their part, they will do everything so that you get the idea that the idea of ​​firing an RPG from a tank is not the best.
    Therefore, you need to be a round idiot and shoot at armored vehicles from one position! And in advance or according to the situation, changing the position is not fate at all, what the la?)))
    Yes, K-16 is very good in terms of growth, that is, height. Higher tanks are obtained. Many drew attention to this. And besides, heavy, 32 tons.
    The height is a twofold thing - its combat module is also placed above the classic Russian armored personnel carriers - and this is a definite plus. Shelling --- the landing force dismounts and begins to cover the enemy in ticks. The APC /// if it has not lost mobility /// changes position and supports the landing with fire. The shelling sector at its height will be larger than that of our classic APCs. __________________________________ Otherwise, I agree. We even have unmodernized armored personnel carriers in the boxes of MS and other brigades. I think they need to be changed to Boomerang as soon as possible.
  • Operator
    Operator 8 May 2020 14: 23 New
    -1
    In the matter of choosing an armored personnel carrier, you must either remove the cross (use of an armored personnel carrier in the first line of attack) or put on your underpants (combat weight at the MBT level - which is possible only if there is a caterpillar mover).

    And without it, all such articles remain at the level of transfusion from empty to empty.
  • White AK
    White AK 8 May 2020 14: 47 New
    +2
    I really needed it, I was not very comfortable at 80, knowing that the line of PCMs would put us all in it, and the RPG is really bad, especially since the speed of aiming KPVT with manual drives is very long and extremely inaccurate, especially on the move
  • Interdum_silentium_volo
    Interdum_silentium_volo 8 May 2020 14: 47 New
    +6
    I'll start with the Main idea: the Ministry of Defense, choosing equipment and purchasing, does not proceed from the formula "the best", but from the formula - "I can afford it."
    So the BTR-82a is a vivid demonstration of the "I can afford" formula. The goal is to put all the infantry on equipment, so that it can be maximized mobility. You can put on a super modern BMP (BTR) and, as a result, have 1-2 mobile brigades, or to put on cheaper simple but many times more brigades. And here you need to look for a balance between quantity and quality!
    War is not the action of one tank or soldier, but the interaction of a squad-platoon-company-battalion-brigade, etc.
    Better by itself "Boomerang"?!?! Of course yes. Is the best option for the army?!?!? And here there may be a sudden answer "No", and in order to give it you need to have information, and not to assume by "news "and" I heard ".
    The article has a lot of emotions and saliva, but a little constructive. The author crossed the line, and switched to personal insults. And he adjusts the facts a lot, as he is comfortable.

    On the issue of RPGs, neglect of it can only be from a small mind, as soon as a tank (infantry fighting vehicle, armored personnel carrier) enters a settlement, the advantage in firing range is sharply reduced, and the ability to get a shot at the side only increases. Speaking of infantry that covers, you need to understand how much she can really control, if the tank moves along the street where it is surrounded by 5 floors, you will need as much infantry to guarantee security as you will not have.

    On trips on armored vehicles, everyone has already said well, but I’ll add that in the armored personnel carrier that riding inside the BMP is not a pleasant activity, and it’s not safe. Especially considering that the infantry is fighting dismounted from equipment, and not in armor, and even less so on the armor.

    And I agree with the author about the height and dimensions, in conditions when ATGMs are commonplace, and especially modern ATGMs that hit from above. The value of dimensions on the "strike" is not necessary, if it does not apply to transportation by plane, by train, where there is a strict framework of what is permitted.

    P / s: "In my understanding that the armored personnel carrier (82a) and the BMP (2) have long turned into the same thing. Where is the goal to bring, and support with fire. And the compromise is when there is a universal box that holds 12,7 mm in a circular one (again why not 7,62 by 54 on the sides, but because right now the Yankees are trying on a machine gun under 338LM and the fact that right now they hold 7,62 by 54 (51) on the side will not be able to master 338 tomorrow), has the ability to hang various mounted armor from DZ , up to metal-ceramic that increases resistance in miracles of miracles up to 30mm in the front projection. And depending on the goals and tasks, various combat modules: self-propelled gun, self-propelled mortar, self-propelled anti-tank missile system, self-propelled MANPADS, BPM, armored personnel carriers, etc. "

    And considering that right now there is:



  • demiurg
    demiurg 8 May 2020 15: 32 New
    +5
    The author is confused in the evidence and facts. When it comes to height, it is immediately recalled that this machine will not fight. When about weight and weapons, this armored personnel carrier should go almost ahead of the tanks.
    BTR new need. But what is needed is an armored personnel carrier, and not a mixture of MRAP and a light tank.
    A wheeled infantry fighting vehicle, which because of its size does not live on the battlefield of Russia, is needed like a cow’s fifth leg. There was a development of heavy wheeled infantry fighting vehicles. The military did not like it. This is normal, in the United States heaps of projects are rejected, and we immediately began to erect a whining wall, with the obligatory mention of cuts. Well, for some reason he also dragged temples, Serdyukov remembered. Horses mixed up in a bunch, people.
  • mister-red
    mister-red 8 May 2020 15: 50 New
    +4
    My colleague Krivov and I were given a try two years ago. In the exercises where we shot. Misha - the layout of the tank, 300 meters to her. The briefing was. All showed. Well, we fired, in accordance with the information received. Of course not. But they had the notion that after such a shot they won’t let you get another one, if only the mentally retarded are on the other side.

    From this place I stopped reading. I explain. He served in the Marine Corps as a grant-thrower. We had RPG-16s that were already removed from service. They shot a lot, for each shooting 3 shots. Shooting for the service was not less than 10, faster more. The standard target for firing is moving, I don’t remember the distance exactly, but almost the maximum for this RPG, i.e. at least 600-700 m. And imagine, after several firing, hitting at least from the second shot. It has been 35 years, but I still get into the window of a high-rise building with 1/2 km from the second shot. The first shot is always needed for correction. For 300 m in a motionless target, and now I would not need a second one.
    So try on a grenade launcher after a short briefing is at least have a strong conceit.
    1. demiurg
      demiurg 8 May 2020 16: 00 New
      0
      He imagined himself an expert-publicist-pravdorub. Second Timoshkin. But Timoshkin knows what he is writing about, although he is quarrelsome and touchy.
    2. TatarinSSSR
      TatarinSSSR 8 May 2020 21: 52 New
      -1
      I doubt it very much. 300 meters are three football fields. 1/2 km is five hundred meters and 5 football fields. When you are on the football field at one goal, you see the goalkeeper very close at the other goal? Without optics from a hundred meters alone you will not get from a Kalash standing. What are you telling tales about distances of 300 meters or more from an RPG through the window? Next, the second shot after the first sighting? Who will let you shoot a second time just like that in a battle or an ambush? If we had such "storytellers" in the Marines, then it is a little unclear how they were taken there ....
      1. Olgerd Gediminovich
        Olgerd Gediminovich 9 May 2020 12: 42 New
        +3
        I’ll intercede for the Marine.
        RPG-16 - weapons of the Afghan Airborne. Now, unfortunately, is outdated.
        The RPG-16 has optics as well as the RPG-7 with a multiplicity of 2.7. Plus bipod. Sighting range 800 m.
        On a moving tank at 500 m it will work out easily. 600-700m - only for experienced grenade launcher.

        You talk about Kalash in vain, dear. When I was still a snotty cadet, a machine gun crew and an arrow (two emerging targets) were regularly placed on the UKS, which is 200-250 m on the runwithout standing! These targets have always been the easiest to exercise. The next is a grenade thrower (250-350 m), shoot from the knee. And the most difficult thing is a moving infantry group (350-450 m) (two growth moving targets), you shoot while lying down. And this is without optics, of course, from the AK-74. At the end of the service, I changed the usual machine to a night machine with an NSPUM sight with a magnification of 3,5. The same exercise was performed jokingly at night. The platoon was experimenting with my trunk - he cleaned growth figures at night from 600 m. Snipers with SVD were jealous.

        So what about football fields is in vain.
        1. Olgerd Gediminovich
          Olgerd Gediminovich 9 May 2020 15: 48 New
          +1
          A small comment:
          Afghan Airborne Forces - meant those who performed international duty.
          And yet: UKS is performed only in queues. Single fire is prohibited. So on the go and in short bursts. For all three purposes - 35 rounds.
        2. TatarinSSSR
          TatarinSSSR 10 May 2020 18: 10 New
          0
          You are apparently a unique person who fills a squirrel in the eye with a guard. But I have personally seen for 7 years and I know how servicemen of our respected army shoot at firing ranges, from conscripts of motorized riflemen to contract soldiers of the reconnaissance company. And it is not at all as smooth as people like you describe here as "snipers". In the target at 200 meters (PR) they fall short from the second store, and even then not all. Machine gunners empty 80% zinc into milk. And this is in complete calmness, without the influence of enemy fire. And this is considered the norm there, "anyway, there will be no type of war on a large scale with anyone, but the MTR and aviation will cope with a trifle." You know, according to my passport, my car must travel from place to hundred in 9 seconds. He's only a month old. And it spends 12 seconds, spotted on purpose. So you can write anything. But the realities are different. And yes, putting a huge RPG-16 fart on a bipod, with a PGO-16 - this is not a shot from an RPG-7 or a fly with a bar.
          1. Olgerd Gediminovich
            Olgerd Gediminovich 11 May 2020 12: 42 New
            +1
            Sad to read. Is everything really so bad now?
            He himself served more than 30 years ago.
            The most apt was not.
            My crew got deuces, it happened, especially at night. From the "Thunder" to the BMP-1, the gunner often had to aim at the barrel. This did not add accuracy and rate of fire. On training machines, the sight, then the electric drive did not work forever.
            The battalion commander had a common practice - Losers from the shooting range walk to the location on foot (they dragged weapons and boxes with training materials on themselves), the rest went to the "Ural". The shooting range is 15 km away. If they shot at night, then the Losers only returned in the morning, they did not have time to sleep.
            A couple of times, too, had to stomp in this way.
  • Hog
    Hog 8 May 2020 20: 57 New
    0
    Quote: Olgerd Gediminovich

    1) no matter how good the Kurganets car is

    And what does "Kurganets" have to do with it if the article is about "Boomerang"?
    1. Olgerd Gediminovich
      Olgerd Gediminovich 9 May 2020 12: 13 New
      0
      Sorry, wrong.
      But this also applies to Kurganets.
  • TatarinSSSR
    TatarinSSSR 8 May 2020 21: 47 New
    +1
    The author, how do your phrases relate in one story?
    Machine gun? Well yes. But not a very accurate weapon.
    ...........
    getting through an armored personnel carrier from a machine gun or cannon is much easier than from an RPG. And from a greater distance. And on a moving target
    ??? The rest of the article is also not very robust.
  • FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 9 May 2020 06: 20 New
    +5
    Author, arrogance and arrogance more than knowledge. You didn’t get out of the RPG and you think that others will not. Everyone here calls you sofa experts.
    Have you ever heard of the word "economy"? Do you understand why neither the Su-57 (which is without engines), nor Armata, nor Boomerang, nor Kurganets, nor other "products" are needed by the Ministry of Defense? Because at a higher cost, the efficiency hasn't improved much. Because two Su-35s are better than one Su-57. And three BTR-82A are better than one Boomerang. That's all. And the Ministry of Defense thinks very simply - that the BTR-82AM, that the Boomerang will burn out during a week of intense fighting in any case, no matter how - a mine or an RPG or due to a breakdown, the damage will leave it. And it's better to have 3 cars instead of one. This is exactly the case.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • +5
    +5 9 May 2020 10: 17 New
    +4
    Boomerang is definitely needed. He's definitely better than 82 ki. But not instead, but in addition. We don’t just have infantry (except for mountain parts), but only motorized rifles. To put everyone on the Boomerangs and Kurgan residents, the navel will be untied. But there are no millions of armies, the value of each soldier has grown significantly.
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 9 May 2020 11: 02 New
    0
    A lot of beeches, but there are essentially:

    1. The "big war" in the knightly style, such as wall to wall in the field, is unlikely to happen. The war between China, Russia or the United States will be atomic in any case, and the military aggression of one of the heavyweights against the countries will not be weaker than the "big" one.

    2. With a mass of 32 tons and a cannon from the BMP-2, I would not be in a hurry to record this product in an armored personnel carrier. Or then it is necessary to "write out from the BMP" all BMPs, except for Armata.

    3. So why is this toy better than the BTR-82? Mine resistance, convenient entry, patency (?), Electronics (which can be crammed into armored personnel carriers), reinforced armor. OK. And now what of this is fundamentally more necessary than a “conveyor coming from behind”?
  • Dm_2
    Dm_2 9 May 2020 11: 34 New
    +2
    Quote: max702
    Or maybe an BTR-87? Dimensions are sane, any engine can be shoved, there is a mine mine, internal dimensions are not bad, it can float, components and assemblies from the 80th


    Cheap and cheerful.
    - there is a ramp
    - 12.7 mm in a circle holds
    - 23 mm in the forehead holds
    - there is already some kind of mine protection

    Definitely better than BTR-82A
    1. LastPS
      LastPS 9 May 2020 22: 54 New
      +2
      Definitely better, but release 82nd. In a good way, the BTR-90 should have been like that, and it was it that should have been produced, not the 82nd.
    2. Grits
      Grits 11 May 2020 12: 29 New
      +2
      Quote: Dm_2
      Definitely better than BTR-82A

      You forgot that, unlike the BTR-82, it is still additionally equipped with 2 ATGMs
  • grumbler
    grumbler 9 May 2020 11: 36 New
    0
    Congratulations on Victory Day! Peace to all.
    A million times have already been discussed: the army needs 2 lines of vehicles - "heavy" tracked and "medium" wheeled.
    At the same time, wheeled vehicles must also have high security. Gone are the days of WWII, when mass casualties were "acceptable" (it was possible to carry the wounded in an open "lorry" under fire, or when the Americans landed in Normandy and when the landing barge ports were opened, blood was shed from there, since machine-gun fire pierced them through and through) ... The concept of saving people rules.

    As practice shows, wheeled armored personnel carriers often perform police / anti-terrorist / peacekeeping "functions. That is, there is a great threat of being blown up by a land mine, a suicide bomber attack on a car, and now homemade drones have been added. Therefore, MRAP. Equipment will be larger and more expensive (all this multilayer composite armor, Kevlar anti-fragmentation lining, active protection,
    automatic fire extinguishing systems, sly suspension chairs instead of the usual "benches"; living conditions must be acceptable). The wheeled APC is a well-protected "off-road bus". For a "police / peacekeeping" vehicle, a high profile is not a hindrance.

    For the Army, this is a good "platform" for highly mobile protected grenade launchers / modular rocket launchers / electronic warfare / control and reconnaissance / medical / transport and evacuation and resource-supplying vehicles, etc. In the "military" version, a "combat module" is needed (a large-caliber machine gun or small-caliber automatic cannon; auto grenade launcher; ATGM (for protection from tanks in case of accidental contact)). Plus, a well-developed system for setting up a smoke screen / radar image of the curtain / fired off heat traps, under the protection of which you can hide or land troops.
    (by the way, for police / peacekeeping purposes, the "ink cloud" is also very important - as a non-lethal means of self-defense and dispersal of excited crowds).

    And let me look at the wheeled armored personnel carrier slightly from a different angle. Correct me, but in my opinion it is traceable a clear tendency of an ever wider involvement of the Army in the peaceful tasks of the Ministry of Emergencies, medicine and the police. The epidemic showed it. Those. The army will gradually merge with the Ministry of Emergency Situations and become "universal forces of self-defense." This will give the military constant training in real, not proving grounds. Will dramatically improve the efficiency of interaction between civilian and military structures (which is important both in emergency situations and in wartime). Facilitate the exchange of experience, techniques and "best practices" between the military and civilians. It will greatly increase the level of trust and respect for the Army among the people (wars on their territory, thank God, do not happen so often, and climatic and environmental disasters, epidemics are not uncommon). This can give very significant savings in budgetary funds where duplication can be eliminated, for example: civilian and military specialists can use the same resources: logistics (aircraft, airfields, tractors ...); machinery and equipment (often it differs only in color); training centers, simulators and ranges ... And just the Army in peacetime will bring everyday benefits.

    Therefore, army wheeled armored personnel carriers will often be used to evacuate civilians from zones of genocide and hostilities, from emergency zones (natural disasters, epidemics and man-made disasters). For the transport of people requiring special protection (prisoners, judges, politicians). In particular, to work in the zones of man-made disasters (chemical, radiation) functions of RBKhZ, they also need full-fledged "military" ones (only change absorbers from any "mustard / phosgene" to ammonia, etc. Or install closed-loop systems. This is solved by modularity, unification and pairing compatibility). For the transportation in crisis situations of goods requiring protection: especially hazardous substances (chemicals, bio-materials, isotopes), collection of valuables (money, works of art).
    And since the functions of the Ministry of Emergency Situations (floods), then it must be able to swim.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • About 2
    About 2 9 May 2020 15: 44 New
    0
    The author begins with the fact that the ATGMs of the Toe and RPG 7 are two different classes of weapons and although the Toe is not much more modern than the RPG 7, it is superior in power to the latter. RPG 7 shoots with a rocket-propelled grenade whose direction is given by aiming and the Toe is a much more powerful guided missile which is approaching the operator controls the target. Regarding RPG 7, you talk about how a couch amateur who was allowed to shoot this weapon once without training. For your information, I inform you that our motorized rifle units are mostly armed with this weapon and the modern nomenclature of ammunition for it, it is possible to fight both infantry and tanks and lighter enemy armored vehicles. Anti-tank grenades PG 7VL, PG7VR grenade with a tandem warhead allowing you to fight tanks equipped with dynamic protection, TBG 7 anti-personnel grenade with thermobaric warhead, an approximate analogue of RPO A Bumblebee and OG 7 V anti-personnel grenade with fragmentation warhead. The photo showed a break aboard the BTR 80 which the TBG 7 grenade left, is very impressive especially considering that
    anti-personnel grenade. Now about the Americans, if in your words an RPG is a rogue weapon then why is the US Army armed with an RPG AT4 made in Sweden and a Swedish made RPG analog with a rifled barrel recoilless gun Carl Gustav? Why does the German Bundeswehr have an RPG panzerfaust 3 ?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Ovsigovets
    Ovsigovets 9 May 2020 18: 40 New
    +3
    Distracting from all the calculations of those who understand the technical component of the topic as an ordinary man in the street, I want to note that it ANNOYES when they roll out to the Parade, loudly telling that here it is miraculous and the best and soon our soldiers will soon ride on it ... then another 5 years show and tell (let ... we wait, making a discount on tests) .... and then herak "but we don't need it and we buy what was" ...... why are you 5 years old you pour into your ears and gobble up the money of the sovereign if this is wrong again ????? BTR-82 / 82A already have 1,5 thousand (I don’t presume to judge good or bad) ... there are 1,5 thousand more BTR-80 (reserve for modernization for young technicians) .... In short, there is something to SWIM at once they want to ... Decide already, develop and put in the troops .... zadolbali
    1. grumbler
      grumbler 10 May 2020 09: 57 New
      +1
      on Ovsigovets May 09, 2020,
      I fully support you. The defense-order kitchen should remain behind the scenes. Received by the troops? - roll out to the parade: this is what our Army is armed with.

      And promising samples can be advertised at bright presentations (see how they furnish it in the USA, cod is cleaner than any other parade), war games and exhibitions (Pariot Park?). Except, very extreme cases of desperate bluff (as was done in the 50s in the USSR), when it was necessary to scare the adversaries, although only a few were made.

      And how insulting the engineers are when they design for years (!), And then bam!
      "It's too expensive and clever. You can use this" reliable and proven design of the 60s "to make a weapon of the XXI century. And do not forget that all the deadlines have already passed, you have mastered the means as parasites. And so that it was ready yesterday!" And it's good if they don't transfer the work to competitors. And the company's accountants have their hair on end - what to feed us for? - the contracts have been "eaten away" over the years. The office goes to the bank for loans, and then it takes years to get out of them. What kind of "R&D and innovation" is there, would praise money for patches to a shrinking team (old people drop out, young people leave).
  • Eugene - Jhonny
    Eugene - Jhonny 9 May 2020 18: 40 New
    0
    It’s somehow not smart ...
    The author proposes to actively invest in the development of all types of weapons and ... do not give a damn about the patriotic education of youth and respect for the folded heads and officers for their homeland, for Russia ?! !!
    I understand correctly?
    And who will control these supernova weapons if worthy sons and daughters of the Fatherland are not brought up, ready to sacrifice their lives to protect their homeland. And where can they kneel down - parents, friends, fellow soldiers, brothers and sisters and pray for the souls of the innocently killed defenders of Russia if temples, churches and mosques are not built?
    Something like this ...
    1. Ded_Mazay
      Ded_Mazay 9 May 2020 19: 24 New
      0
      Unfortunately, the opinion that this is all window dressing, drank and in general an imitation of violent activity is quite common. It's a pity.
  • Eroma
    Eroma 10 May 2020 00: 00 New
    +2
    The technique must be modernized during the life cycle, but you can’t drag out the life cycle! A whole era has passed since the creation of the BTR82 in technology, the time has come to create the next generation car! But there should be a Boomerang, or something else, the main thing that would appear in a timely manner!
  • Konatantin 1992
    Konatantin 1992 10 May 2020 08: 36 New
    +2
    What can I think, sharpening the laces ... BTR 82A cheap modernization of existing, outdated BTR 80, that's all. There is no money for the Boomerangs and Kurganians - get an armored personnel carrier 82, everything is better than nothing. What is there to talk about? what’s better, what’s worse, what’s better now ... There will be money (never likely) then the troops will receive modern equipment. All.